Connecticut 5 Final … · Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Gannett Fleming Transit

Connecticut Department of Transportation

Task 2: Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives

March 2006

Feasibility Study Danbury Branch Electrification Project No. 302-008

FINAL REPORT

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Gannett Fleming Transit & Rail Systems URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study

Feasibility Study Danbury Branch Electrification

Task 2 Report – Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives

Table of Contents

SECTION TAB Number Table of contents 1 Executive Summary 2 2.1 Review Branch Rights of Way Boundaries 3

A. Update Planimetric Mapping 4 B. Housatonic Railroad Company Property 5 C. Areas of Concern – Physical Conditions 6

D. Areas of Concern – Environmental Concerns 7

2.2, 2.3, & 2.4 Track Configuration Alternatives 8

1.0 Evaluate Track Geometry Improvements 9

2.0 Evaluate Feasibility of Double Tracking 10

3.0 Evaluate Feasibility of Passing Sidings as Alternative To Double Tracking 11

4.0 Conceptual service Revisions 12 5.0 Tables, Figures, and Appendices 12

5.1 Figures: South Norwalk to Danbury 13 5.2 Tables: South Norwalk to Danbury 14 5.3 Figures: Danbury to New Milford 15 5.4 Tables: Danbury to New Milford 16

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Gannett Fleming Transit & Rail Systems URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study 5.5 String Line Diagrams: South Norwalk to New Milford 17 5.6 Cost Estimate Details: South Norwalk to Danbury 18 5.7 Cost Estimate Details: Danbury to New Milford 19 2.5 Evaluate Innovative Technologies 20 Colorado Rail Car Attachment 21 Alignment Plans 22

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Gannett Fleming Transit & Rail Systems URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Task 2 of this study examines a range of possible infrastructure and service improvement alternatives that would reduce travel times along the Danbury Branch of the New Haven Line. The Connecticut Department of Transportation, in consultation with Metro-North Railroad, as well as the regional planning organizations (SWRPA and HVCEO), and stakeholders in the Danbury Branch corridor, established a scope of work for Task 2 that focuses on track infrastructure and service improvements that could potentially achieve these objectives. The first step in this process (Tasks 2.1 A and B) begins with a revision of the existing rail valuation and planimetric maps to reflect any relevant right of way changes that have taken place along the Branch line from South Norwalk to Danbury, and along the existing Housatonic Railroad line from Danbury to New Milford. These maps, along with aerial photos, were used to identify and plot potential areas of concern where improvements would have a potential negative impact if implemented. Also the Department’s mapping was updated to reflect recent ROW transactions along the state owned Danbury Branch between South Norwalk and Danbury. The next effort in the study scope (Task 2.1 C) is a review and identification of physical areas of concern such as bridges, utilities, at grade crossings, and geological conditions. This effort was actually continuous from an initial field reconnaissance through the development of the various track configuration alternatives. Discussions of these potential physical impacts are presented with each of the alternatives under Tasks 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 of this report. In Task 2.1 D, the Study Team conducted a field survey of the Branch and a review of existing environmental documentation on the Branch to determine what potential environmental impacts would result from the possible infrastructure and service improvements. This includes both construction impacts as well as operational impacts of service improvements. A total of 19 locations were examined where there was potential for construction impacts affecting the following categories, including: location, land acquisition, water resources, noise & vibration, environmental justice and cultural resources, natural habitat (non-water) and other impact issues. A number of potential impacts to wetlands as well as other NEPA categories were identified, and would require further analysis should particular options be further pursued for preliminary engineering. A table of all potential impacts is presented in this section. Tasks 2.2 through 2.4 contains the bulk of the work in Task 2. They cover the three major track configuration alternatives included in Task 2 of the Feasibility Study Danbury Branch Electrification. Prior to examining the design considerations and costs of electrifying the line (Task 4 of this study), three strategies were evaluated that would result in 5, 10 and 15 minute travel time improvements. The improvements were for both existing service between Danbury and South Norwalk, and, to help determine whether a service extension to New Milford is financially viable, for potential service from New

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Gannett Fleming Transit & Rail Systems URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study Milford to South Norwalk. The three major infrastructure improvements that are the subject of this section of the report are:

• Track geometry improvements • Addition of Double Tracking • Passing Siding Improvements

Evaluate Track Geometry Improvements This effort consisted of reviewing the current alignment of the Danbury Branch (South Norwalk to Danbury) and identifying conceptual track improvements that would enable a reduction in current running time of approximately 5, 10 and 15 minutes. The study also looked at extending commuter rail service northward approximately 14 miles from Danbury to New Milford. The study reviewed the current freight-only railroad alignment between Danbury and New Milford and identified conceptual track improvements that would enable a reduction in current running time of approximately 5, 10 and 15 minutes. The reductions in running time would be accomplished by a combination of increasing superelevation on the existing alignment and constructing new alignments to reduce curvature. These improvements would allow an increase in maximum allowable speeds. A major part of the analysis was to identify the various engineering and construction issues associated with the alignment changes. Evaluate the Feasibility of Double Tracking This effort consisted of identifying the engineering and construction issues associated with double tracking both the South Norwalk - Danbury and Danbury - New Milford segments. The analysis evaluated the construction of a second main track adjacent to the existing alignment as well as the conceptual alignments identified with the proposed 5, 10 and 15-minute running time reductions on both segments. Evaluate the Feasibility of Passing Sidings as an Alternative to Double Tracking This effort consisted of identifying the engineering and construction issues associated with locating passing sidings on both the South Norwalk - Danbury and Danbury - New Milford segments. The analysis evaluated the issues of locating both short or long passing sidings on the conceptual alignments identified with the proposed 5, 10 and 15-minute running time reductions on both segments.

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Gannett Fleming Transit & Rail Systems URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study Findings of the Task 2 Engineering Evaluation Preliminary cost estimates have been developed for each of the 26 conceptual scenarios that were identified in the study. The cost estimates detailed in this report were developed from estimated quantities multiplied by current (4th Quarter - 2003) unit costs. The cost estimates include estimated costs for construction, engineering, third party construction phase services and contingency. The estimated costs pertain to railroad construction and a contingency factor to cover items such as property acquisition, demolition, roadway realignment and environmental mitigation. Due to the conceptual nature of the study, the estimates should be regarded as order of magnitude estimates rather than detailed engineering estimates. The number of closely spaced, consecutive curves within the existing alignment between South Norwalk and Danbury precludes the opportunity to achieve any significant reduction in running time; major alignment changes would be required to improve curvature. The estimates for reducing running time by 10 or 15 minutes are in the hundreds of million dollars due to the extensive earthwork construction that would be required. However, upgrading the existing track and increasing the superelevation on most curves could significantly improve the current running time between Danbury and New Milford; major alignment changes would not be required. The following tables summarize the estimated cost for each of the various scenarios for reduction in running times (by 5, 10 and 15-minutes), the estimated cost to construct a second main track parallel to the existing or realigned single track, and the estimated cost for short and long passing sidings on the new alignments:

Comparison of Costs to Reduce Running Times South Norwalk to Danbury and Danbury to New Milford

South Norwalk – Danbury Improvements

Track Configuration Existing 5-Min. 10-Min. 15-Min. Max. Speed 50 mph 60 mph 60 mph 70 mph Single Track N/A $6M $635M $1,037M Double Track $251M $255M $710M $1,078M Passing Siding-Short N/A $9M $14M $19M Passing Siding-Long N/A $30M $34M $32M

Danbury – New Milford Improvements Track Configuration Existing 5-Min. 10-Min. 15-Min.

Max. Speed 30 mph 40 mph 50 mph 60 mph Single Track N/A $27M $28M $57M Double Track $138M $139M $139M $146M Passing Siding-Short N/A $14M $12M $8M Passing Siding-Long N/A $64M $48M $34M

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Gannett Fleming Transit & Rail Systems URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study It should be noted that the above costs for constructing either the second track or passing sidings assume that existing single track was previously improved. As an example, if it was decided to improve the existing single track and construct a second main track as part of the same project to reduce running time by 10 minutes between South Norwalk and Danbury, the estimated cost would be: $635M + $710M = $1.345B. Improvement Options The information in Task 2 should be reviewed in the context of current and future ridership on the Branch to determine whether the expense to reduce running times of 5, 10 or 15 minutes south of Danbury is justified (covered in Task 3 and subsequent Phase II elements of this study). Smaller improvements can be carried out at considerably less cost, such as reducing running time by 3.5 minutes on the existing single track main line ($6M) and constructing passing sidings to facilitate operations and improve service ($9M). Similarly, running time between Danbury and New Milford can be reduced by 10 minutes on the existing single track main line ($28M) and constructing passing sidings to facilitate operations ($12M). The study also examines possible reduction in running times by revising current service patterns, such as introducing local and express service (applicability of skip stop service); introducing newer, less costly diesel equipment such as Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs) on the Branch; and the potential installation of quad gate crossing protection to improve speeds. The alternatives presented in this study task offer a framework from which the advantages to service may be considered. Service patterns and ridership projections will be used to weigh alternatives and service value in the next study phase. The Task 2 report concludes with Task 2.5, which evaluates the potential of three innovative technology and service improvement strategies to improve travel times. These include the possible use of innovative rail equipment, such as state-of-the-art Diesel Multiple Units (DMU) now in use in Florida and New Jersey for commuter rail service and tilt train equipment; the installation of four quadrant gates to increase train speeds through grade crossings; and the institution of skip-stop and express service to reduce travel times along the Branch. DMU equipment could successfully operate along the Branch, but has implications in terms of its compatibility with other existing and planned equipment purchases for the New Haven Line; it was determined that tilt train equipment is generally not efficient for rail service under 100 miles per hour and therefore not appropriate for the Branch. The use of quad gate equipment, similarly, is generally applied for higher speed train service than the Branch will be capable of implementing. Finally, it was determined that skip stop and express service is generally most effective when frequencies of trains and ridership levels are relatively higher than existing Branch service. However, increasing

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Gannett Fleming Transit & Rail Systems URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study the frequency of service on the Danbury Branch would require additional equipment and crews. Without the increased frequency of service, passengers would perceive a reduction in service quality, which would have a potentially adverse impact on ridership levels.

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study Task 2.1 Review Branch Rights of Way Boundaries Introduction This study of the Danbury Branch and possible extension of rail service from Danbury to New Milford begins with a review of existing mapping, field survey of existing physical conditions and a preliminary assessment of potential environmental concerns. The mapping and environmental reviews were based on documents and information from the Connecticut Department of Transportation.

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study Task 2.1 A Update Planimetric Mapping: South Norwalk to Danbury Mapping from Connecticut Department of Transportation Planimetric mapping for South Norwalk to Danbury identified as "State of Connecticut, Department of Transportation, Danbury-South Norwalk Rail Line, In the Towns of Danbury, Bethel, Redding, Ridgefield, Wilton and Norwalk, Project No. 884-497." These are 1" = 100' scale plans that show the existing railroad and adjacent topography. The railroad property lines are shown. Railroad valuation maps (VAL maps) from the previous railroad company that also are 1" = 100' scale and show property lines but more limited topography were also obtained. As required in scope, the Property Management section of the Office of Rails, New Haven Operation Office, was contacted to obtain information on property transactions that took place since the Planimetric Mapping was prepared in the early 1990's. Several such items were found and the appropriate maps were revised to show adjusted property lines and the type and date of transaction were noted. The revisions were for: Planimetric Map 016 Redding Planimetric Map 032 Wilton Planimetric Map 05 Danbury

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study Task 2.1 B Housatonic Railroad Company Property: Danbury to New Milford VAL maps for sections of the Maybrook Branch and New Milford Secondary that cover the proposed extension from Danbury to New Milford were also obtained from ConnDOT. The property is now owned by Housatonic RR Co. (HRC). Preliminary discussion with HRC revealed:

• No significant changes to property lines • Passenger equipment can operate along the line as Freight moves at night • Electrification will negatively impact vertical clearance for Freight operations

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study Task 2.1 C Areas of Concern: Physical Conditions South Norwalk to Danbury Today's Danbury Branch was originally constructed in the 1850's as the Danbury & Norwalk Railroad. The overall railroad alignment has not been appreciably upgraded since the original construction and the current alignment reflects the narrow right-of-way and numerous curves typical of earlier railroad construction. The railroad generally follows the Norwalk River, northward from Norwalk, for 15 miles. Between MP 15 and MP 16, approximately midway between Branchville and Redding, the Danbury Branch crosses over the ridgeline separating the Norwalk River and Sympaug Brook. Between Redding and Danbury, the railroad generally follows the Sympaug Brook and Still River. Tasks 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 include extensive discussion of physical conditions and potential impacts. Major items are:

• Parallel waterways • Parallel and crossing utility lines • Adjacent development, Norwalk Wall St. area, Wilton Station area, and Bethel

town center Danbury to New Milford Today's Housatonic Railroad was originally constructed in the 1830's. Various line changes were made afterwards to reduce curvature. The line generally parallels the Still River and Housatonic River north of Berkshire Junction. Overall, curvature and grade north of Danbury is less stringent than the line south of Danbury. Discussions of physical conditions and potential impacts are likewise discussed in Tasks 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4. Physical conditions are not expected to have significant impacts on a service extension or track upgrade up to 60 mph track speed as the track improvements discussed would be accomplished within existing RR property.

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study

Task 2.1 D Areas of Environmental Concerns 1.0 Introduction This task provides a preliminary review of potential environmental concerns for track modifications and electrification of the Danbury Branch. The review of potential environmental concerns has been performed based on established data sources and field review and investigation. If the project is to be continued based on the results of the feasibility study, additional and thorough environmental reviews that may include a Federal Environmental Assessment will be required to fully assess the potential environmental impacts of the selected modifications to the Danbury branch. This review points to possible environmental conditions that will require further review. The data utilized for this assessment included the following:

• Field Investigation & Review • Report – Historical and Architectural Cultural Resources Investigations, Metro-North

Commuter Railroad Danbury Branch, The Public Archaeological Laboratory, March 1998

• Memorandum – Environmental Review – Project No. 34-234, State of Connecticut Department Of Transportation, November 1996

• Mapping – Danbury to South Norwalk Rail Line in the Towns of Danbury, Bethel, Redding, Ridgefield, Wilton, and Norwalk Project No. 884-497, State of Connecticut Department of Transportation

• Aerial Mapping - AeroMetrics These sources have provided insight into the environmental issues that may impact the electrification or other modification required to decrease travel times on the Danbury Branch. The environmental assessment includes information on the following categories:

• Location • Land Acquisition • Water Resources • Noise & Vibration • Environmental Justice & Cultural Resources • Natural Habitat (non-water) • Other Impact Issues

These categories provide an indication of any environmental issues that may arise as part of this effort and have been utilized to provide focus for this task. The following sections provide an overview of the environmental assessment. The first section will review potential impacts that may result from the construction locations indicated in the Task Two “Evaluation of Engineering

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study Alternatives” report. The following section provides an overview of the Danbury to New Milford branch possibilities followed by a conclusion section. 2.0 Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts– Major Construction Locations The Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives presents track modifications that would be required to decrease branch running times by five, ten, and fifteen minutes. The five minute time savings will be primarily addressed through operational means. For the purpose of providing an environmental assessment, the major locations of construction identified in the report have been utilized as a guide to address concerns along the rail line. Each of these locations has been field-checked and is included in this assessment. Table 1 provides an overview of the environmental conditions at each location. Prior to a short description of each construction segment an overview of overall environmental impacts by category is provided below. 2.1 Land Acquisition Land acquisition is expected to be a factor for the modifications presented in the engineering alternatives. The modifications to the rail line for both the 10 and 15-minute time savings create modifications that will affect surrounding neighborhoods and communities along developed portions of the branch. In South Norwalk, the first track modifications (MP 0.0 to 0.5) occur in an area that has undergone revitalization in recent years and includes mixed use development, the Maritime Aquarium, and current construction. The City of Norwalk would also require modification in dense residential and commercial areas and a new bridge would need to be constructed to replace use of the Wall Street Tunnel. At the other end of the line, Danbury modifications will also affect that urban community in areas south of Danbury Station. Throughout the rail line, modifications would affect some rural and suburban communities and village centers where homes and businesses are located within close proximity of the current tracks or the proposed modifications. The modifications also indicate the need to relocate some roadways, including Route 7, and waterways and streams that run close to the tracks. This will complicate land acquisition and create challenges for traffic and environmental impact throughout the process. 2.2 Water Resources The current and proposed branch is in close proximity to the Norwalk River throughout its routing and travels through wetlands and various points. Wetland consideration will be important throughout the entire study area. . New bridges are intended to be built over the Norwalk River and excavation and construction will take place in and near wetlands such as lakes, ponds, brooks, and other bodies of water. Construction estimates at particular locations call for the relocation of portions of streams and the Norwalk River as part of the process. This will definitely affect the water resources along the line and will require further study prior to construction.

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study Ground water resources are also expected to require identification and assessment. Much of the Branch passes through rural residential ares and at a minimum private residential wells would be expected to be in use. 2.3 Noise & Vibration Noise and vibration will be an issue in specific areas along the proposed routing of the Danbury Branch. Specific location-based information on noise and vibration impacts can be found in Table 1. The majority of the proposed routing lies in sparsely populated areas that will not be adversely affected by noise and vibration that will occur based on electrification of the rail line. In more densely populated areas including Norwalk and Danbury, as well as locations at numerous stations and town centers, noise and vibration will be an issue. The field work that has been performed as part of this effort provides an indication of potential noise and vibration affects that will impact the electrification project. Table 1 indicates that the greatest potential impacts will be in Danbury, Bethel, Wilton, and Georgetown. It is in these populated areas, and particularly those where track reconfiguration will reduce any buffer between residences/businesses and the tracks that the noise and vibration will create the greatest negative impact. Table 1 provides an assessment of these locations. Construction-based noise and vibration impacts will occur throughout the line and represent a temporary issue. This will be greater in areas that will require blasting and other measures to accommodate track reconfiguration to meet the 10 and 15-minute time savings as indicated in the project. 2.4 Environmental Justice & Cultural Resources There are three specific issues that must be addressed in this section. These are environmental justice, cultural resources, and visual impacts. Each of these is addressed separately below. Environmental justice will be an issue that must be addressed as part of the overall project. The greatest impact on low and moderate income residents will occur in Norwalk and portions of Danbury. The proposed track reconfiguration will create displacement and new alignments that will negatively impact residents in these areas. The track alignments proposed for 10 and 15-minute timesavings will have the greatest negative impact on environmental justice. The track reconfigurations for these savings present major relocation, particularly in Norwalk, that affects low and moderate income neighborhoods. These issues will need to be addressed if the project is to continue to the design and construction phase. The report performed by The Public Archaeological Laboratory, Inc. provides an excellent overview of the potential affects of track modification throughout the Danbury Branch on historical resources. The investigation of the branch yielded 294 historic resources. These range from historic rail infrastructure to an old theater in Norwalk in addition to historic and potential historic homes in the suburban communities. Also included are historic districts, cemeteries, and historic business sites. These issues will need to be reviewed and considered prior to any track modifications.

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study Visual impacts along the Danbury branch are likely to occur in locations where tracks have to be relocated through developed and urban areas. These instances occur throughout the branch and will need to be reviewed. 2.5 Natural Habitat The Danbury Branch travels through numerous wetlands, wooded areas, swampy areas, and travels through the Saugatuck Watershed. There is little existing information on these areas and observations were primarily based on field investigation. The memorandum from ConnDOT that includes an environmental assessment of the Danbury branch provides a letter from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection indicating that the state endangered Calephelis borealis lives in close proximity to the rail line. The letter is not specific as to where this butterfly known as the Northern Metalmark is located along the line, but does point to further review to ensure no negative impact. 2.6 Traffic, Fatal Flaw and Community Acceptance The project, based on proximity to Route 7, Route 53, and the relocation through developed and urban areas has the potential to impede traffic during construction and after project completion based on new grade crossings and reconfigured and relocated roadways. A fatal flaw is an issue from a category of assessment that may provide impediment as a whole and should be considered prior to project initiation. The final aspect of assessment is Community Acceptance. Based on the information in the assessment, it has been preliminarily determined what the level of community acceptance may be for specific location construction. 2.7 Construction Location Assessments This section provides an assessment of each location based on the information included in Table 1. Each location has been assessed for a preliminary environmental review and will be presented below. Location 1 Location 1 will require track modification between milepost 0.0 and 0.5 at the base of the branch above the split with the New York main line. These modifications would create new tracks to the east of the current location. The Maritime Aquarium, portions of the South Norwalk entertainment district, parking structures, and parkland associated with the Aquarium are all within proximity of this segment. In addition this segment is located along the lower portions of the Norwalk River close to the Harbor entrance. This creates cultural resource issues and the potential for land acquisition and displacement. Traffic might be an issue in this location based on new configurations and it is anticipated that community acceptance may be difficult based on the affect on the local attractions.

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study Location 2 The second identified location (MP 0.7 to 1.7) is a major undertaking that would reconfigure a 1-mile section of the line through an urban area of Norwalk that includes eliminating use of the Wall Street tunnel in favor of service through areas of residential and commercial usage. This would involve acquisition and relocation, a new bridge over the Norwalk River, potential noise and vibration issues in residential areas, and potential affect on Matthews Park. The potential for community acceptance is considered difficult and the site would impact urban neighborhoods. Location 3 This location would require minimal modification to accomplish the necessary construction. There is no anticipated impact. Location 4 This segment, between MP 2.6 and 3.3 will require modification to a mixed residential and commercial area and has the potential to impact Main Avenue in northern portions of Norwalk. This segment may also affect waterways due to the construction of a new bridge over the Norwalk River. Based on the location in the urban community, this segment modification may also affect traffic in the local area. The area is predominantly commercial and community acceptance would be moderate. Location 5 The Merritt 7 station which marks the beginning of this segment between MP 3.7 and 4.3 is a rapidly developing commercial and industrial zone. The development of a high-level platform at the station will have no negative environmental impact. The straightening of curves above this point will be affected by the continual growth in the area and the existence of office and parking structures in close proximity to the rail line and the proposed modifications. The project will also affect the Norwalk River which may present environmental impacts based on excavation that will be required in the area. Location 6 The first segment in Wilton that will require construction is between MP 4.7 and 4.9. This location has some commercial activity and some open space including wetlands, bodies of water and wooded areas. There is little information in the way of known environmental hazards in the area and construction would not have great affect on the area based on the minimal modifications that are proposed in the engineering alternatives report. Location 7 This segment located between MP 5.6 and 5.8 will have no environmental impact on the local area. It is anticipated that there will only be minor modification with no new construction.

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study Location 8 This track segment located between MP 5.9 and 6.2 will require some modification and the replacement of an overhead bridge at Wolfpit Road. This will most likely create traffic issues during construction but is not anticipated to have long-term ramifications. There is expected to be no significant impact for this project in the wooded areas that surround this segment. Location 9 This segment is slated for modification that will not have any non-waterway environmental impact, but it will require a new undergrade bridge at the Norwalk River at 6.64. The only potential negative impacts will be possible affect to the river environment located at this site. The entire segment lies between MP 6.4 and 6.6. Location 10 This segment lies between MP 7.0 and 7.7 in Wilton and will require intensive construction to adhere to track configuration set out in the engineering alternatives report. Portions of Route 7 may have to be relocated as well as the Wilton station itself. New bridges will need to be constructed. This area has commercial and residential dwellings as well as major intersections and some wooded areas. While the natural environment impact would be minimal, the land acquisition and community acceptance potential would create difficulties. In addition, the relocation of portions of Route 7 may create traffic impacts and other difficulties as well as noise and vibration based on the new track locations.


Table 1 – Potential Environmental Impacts CRITERIA Location 1 Location 2 Location 3 Location 4 Location 5

Beginning Milepost 0.0 0.7 2.1 2.6 3.7Ending Milepost 0.6 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.310 or 15 Minute Plan Both Both Both Both Both

Current Land Use Start point of branch; retail & aquarium; parkland Mixed; urban core of Norwalk N/A - minor modification mixed commercial & residential Commercial

Acquisition? Yes Yes No Yes Yes

DescriptionMultiple commercial locations located in vicinity; South Norwalk revitalized zone

Major undertaking through urban core Norwalk mixed use residential, commercial, industrial N/A - minor modification Commercial areas

Currently expanding Merritt 7 commercial zone; new structures locating along planned track and abutting current track

Displacement Possible Definite None None None

Water Bodies & Wetlands ImpactPotential; based in proximity to

river Yes; new Norwalk River Bridge No Yes; new Norwalk River Bridge Yes; riverGroundwater Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible

Coastal Access Yes; located near harbor entry No No

NoiseNone

Yes; new track location in residential area None None None

Vibration NoneYes; new track location in

residential area None None None

Histoirical & Cultural ResourcesAquarium None None None None

Visual Impacts minimal Yes None Potential Main Ave impact NoneParklands Yes Matthews Park None None None

Current Habitiat Mixed urban urban urban commecial corridorEndangered Species unknown No None None None

Environmental Impactsminimal None None Possible river impact Excavation Required

Traffic

Yes Yes No Possible negative impact Yes

Fatal Flaw City attraction location City neighborhood impacts None None expanding economic zoneCommunity Acceptance Difficult Difficult Not Issue Moderate Difficult

Natural Habitat (non-water)

Other Impact Issues

Description

Land Acquisition

Water Resources

Environmental Justice & Cultural Resources


Table 1 continued – Potential Environmental Impacts CRITERIA Location 6 Location 7 Location 8 Location 9 Location 10

Beginning Milepost 4.7 5.6 5.9 6.4 7.0Ending Milepost 4.9 5.8 6.2 6.6 7.710 or 15 Minute Plan Both Both Both Both Both

Current Land Use Open space; commercial Woodlands Woodlands; open space Open Space mixed commercial, residential

Acquisition? No No No No Yes

Description

None N/A N/A N/A

Located in central Wilton; will require moving station into commercial area across Route 7 and modification of major intersection & area

Displacement None None None None Yes

Water Bodies & Wetlands Impact

lakes in area Possible NoneYes; new undergrade bridge at Norwalk River None

Groundwater Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible

Coastal Access No None None None

NoiseNone None None None

Yes; located closer to major roadway

Vibration None None None NoneYes; located closer to major roadway

Histoirical & Cultural ResourcesNone None None None

Yes; local station and historical buildings

Visual Impacts None None None None YesParklands None None None None None

Current Habitiat lakes, wetlands Woodlands Woodlands; open space open space, wetlands Mixed useEndangered Species unknown Unknown unknown unknown unknown

Environmental Impactsminimal Minimal Minimal minimal possible

Traffic

Construction only No Impact During construction None

Yes; during construction; will require relocation of Route 7; traffic impacts possible

Fatal Flaw None None None None central Wilton developmentCommunity Acceptance Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Difficult


Other Impact Issues

Description

Land Acquisition

Water Resources



Table 1 continued – Potential Environmental Impacts CRITERIA Location 11 Location 12 Location 13

Beginning Milepost 9.5 9.4 11.5Ending Milepost 9.9 10.1 12.410 or 15 Minute Plan 10-minute 15-minute Both

Current Land Useriver; wetlands; wooded area river; wetlands residential; village downtown

Acquisition? Yes Yes Yes

Description Portions of Route 7 may be relocated, along with some structures to accomplish this construction

Portions of Route 7 may be relocated, along with some structures to accomplish this construction

This portion of railway passes through developed areas of Georgetown with homes and businesses close to current track locaitons and within reasonable distance of modifications

Displacement possible possible Yes

Water Bodies & Wetlands ImpactYes, up to 2 new bridges will be constructed over the Norwalk River; portions of the river may need to be relocated

Yes, up to 5 new bridges will be constructed over the Norwalk River; portions of the river may need to be relocated

Norwalk river and local lake would have possible affect

Groundwater Possible Possible Possible

Coastal AccessNone None None

NoisePossible; relocation of roadway and river may necessitate

Possible; relocation of roadway and river may necessitate

Potential; operating through developed neighborhoods

VibrationPossible Possible Potential

Histoirical & Cultural ResourcesNone None

Yes; historic homes; developed areas; churches

Visual Impacts Possible Possible YesParklands None None Yes

Current HabitiatWetlands; wooded areas Wetlands; wooded areas rural residential

Endangered Species unknown unknown unknown

Environmental Impactspossible possible possible


Other Impact Issues

Description

Land Acquisition

Water Resources



Table 1 continued – Potential Environmental Impacts CRITERIA Location 16 Location 17 Location 18 Location 19

Beginning Milepost 17.3 19.0 20.4 22.5Ending Milepost 19.2 20.8 20.8 23.310 or 15 Minute Plan Both 15-minute 10-minute Both

Current Land Userural residential; wooded areas; wetlands

developed Bethel; rural residential developed urban

Acquisition? Possible Yes Yes Yes

Description

rural residential areas may require acqusition

segment modifications would operate through developed Bethel areas, cross Sympaug Brook and Route 53

segment modifications would operate through developed Bethel areas; require new bridges on town roadways

segment travels through develpoed portions of Danbury; potential for land acquisition throughout

Displacement Possible Possible Possible Yes

Water Bodies & Wetlands ImpactYes; Simpaug Pond, Bogus Brook, wetlands - major excavation and and embankment work reqiured

Yes; new alignment would cross Sympaug Brook None

Possible, Norwalk River operates in vicinity of Danbury Station

Groundwater Possible Possible Possible Possible

Coastal Access None None None None

NoiseNone

Possible; travels through developed areas

Possible; travels through developed areas

Possible, travels through developed areas

Vibration None Possible Possible None

Histoirical & Cultural ResourcesNone

historic homes, downtown developed areas; St. Marys Cemetery

historic homes, downtown developed areas None

Visual Impacts Possible Possible Possible PossibleParklands None Yes None None

Current Habitiat wooded areas, wetlands developed developed urbanEndangered Species unknown None None None

Environmental ImpactsPotential; major excavation required at Bogus Brook; potential for negative affect None None None

Traffic

Possible negative impactPotential for traffic impact during and after project

Potential for traffic impact during and after project

Possible negative impact during and after project

Fatal Flaw Nonemodification in developed areas

modification in developed areas

modifications to developed areas

Community Acceptance Moderate Difficult Difficult Difficult


Other Impact Issues

Description

Land Acquisition

Water Resources



Location 11 This segment of the current line located between MP 9.5 and 9.9 will require fairly expansive construction to straighten curves in the line. This modification will require new undergrade and at-grade bridges and may cross the Norwalk River an estimated 5 times. This will create the potential for negative environmental impact along the entire span of the modification. It is expected that portions of Route 7 will require relocation as well as other roadways in the area. This will require land acquisition on this area that includes rural residential, wooded areas, rivers, and wetlands. Community acceptance may be difficult based on the magnitude of modifications and this effort may negatively affect the natural environment. This will require further study. Location 12 This track segment between MP 9.4 and 10.2 falls within proximity of the modifications detailed above at Location 11. The environmental issues will be similar. Location 13 This segment between MP 11.6 and 12.4 falls within the Village of Georgetown. The proposed modifications will affect this rural village that has developed areas in proximity of the current and proposed track configuration. There are numerous historic homes in the vicinity of the modifications and well as some wooded areas and portions of the Norwalk River. Noise and vibration may affect homes near the new configuration and land acquisition will be a factor at these locations. The community acceptance is expected to be difficult and the environmental impacts will need to be further studied. Location 14 This segment is identifiable by a mix of rural residential, open space and some mixed use locations between MP 13.0 and 15.8 in Ridgefield and Redding. There are also lakes, wetlands, and portions of the Norwalk River that would be affected by the proposed modifications. The 15-minute modifications would affect a wider area around the current track location while the 10-minute modifications would lie closer to the current track and affect the neighborhoods, businesses and natural environment that is located in those areas. These areas would require extensive further study to assess the full environmental impacts. Location 15 This modification is expected to have minimal impact on the rural residential and wooded areas between MP 16.5 and 16.9. There may be land acquisition issues in the rural residential areas, but the overall environmental impact is expected to be minimal.

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study Location 16 This location will require major excavation and embankment work along wetlands and wooded areas as well as Bogus Mountain between MP 17.3 and 19.2 The modification plans differ for the 10 and 15-minute plans but both will require significant work. This may impact the natural environment and wetlands based on the excavation and embankment work that will be performed. This will require further study if the project is to move forward. Location 17 This modification included in the plan to decrease running time by 15-minutes will affect developed portions of downtown Bethel between MP 19.0 and 20.8. The project will require land acquisition and affect natural environment in the vicinity of Sympaug Brook as well as the developed portions of Bethel. The project will also affect historic homes and structures as well as St. Mary’s Cemetery. New roadway configurations and at-grade crossings may affect traffic in the Bethel downtown area. Community acceptance may be difficult for this location. Further study will be required. Location 18 This track segment between MP 20.4 and 20.8 is in the vicinity of the modifications for Location 17 and are intended for the 10-minute time reduction. These modifications would affect the downtown Bethel areas identified above and would yield similar effects. Further study will be required. Location 19 This final segment between MP 22.5 and 23.3 is located in urban Danbury and requires modification through residential neighborhoods and commercial areas, as well as some open space and along the Norwalk River. Land acquisition, noise and vibration, natural environment and traffic may all become issues in this project segment. Further study will be required. 3.0 Danbury to New Milford The proposed portion of the rail line to connect Danbury to New Milford operates from Danbury through the towns of Bethel and Brookfield before terminating in New Milford. There are no specific construction locations by which to guide a discussion of potential environmental impacts for this proposed project. However, based on field investigation and the use of aerial photo investigation, indications can be derived as to the potential for environmental impact. The rail line currently operates in urban, suburban and rural areas that contain a variety of wooded areas, wetlands and waterways, and passes through developed areas and towns/villages. There will need to be further environmental assessment of this segment prior to the development of service. This segment also operates in proximity of I-84 and Route 7, as well as having

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives URBITRAN Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study crossings at major roadways. Consideration of the visual impacts and the noise and vibration issues will need to be considered along with land acquisition. 4.0 Conclusion The modifications to the Danbury Branch that are being proposed to decrease running time along the branch will be a significant undertaking. The environmental impacts may affect urban, suburban and rural neighborhoods as well as portions of the natural environment that can be found along this rail line. Based on the information provided in this section, the following conclusions should be considered as part of the feasibility findings:

• Land Acquisition – Based on the new track configurations, land acquisition will be a major factor in almost every construction project. There are land, building, parkland and historic site ramifications throughout the project which may be an issue for overall project acceptance.

• Waterway Usage – The rail line crosses the Norwalk River at numerous locations and also crosses wetlands and other bodies of water. The impact of excavation and other project requirements will require further study.

• Urban and Developed Area Impacts – The project, in total, will require many established residential and commercial areas to be modified to accommodate the new rail configuration. This includes impact to historic dwellings and buildings as well as roadways. This will affect land acquisition and noise and vibration issues, in addition to creating a difficult environment for community acceptance.

• Roadway Modifications – At various points in the project plans, Route 7 would have to be relocated. It is anticipated that this will also affect local collector roads. These modifications may require substantial planning and construction while creating initial traffic and potential traffic based on the new roadway patterns.

These issues will affect the overall project and have the potential to increase project costs. Land acquisition costs, in particular, have not been clearly identified in the project costs. Environmental impacts will require further study if this effort is to continue into the design and build phases.

Connecticut Department of Transportation Draft Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Gannett Fleming Transit & Rail Systems Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS TASK 2.2 Evaluate Track Geometry Improvements TASK 2.3 Evaluate Feasibility of Double Tracking TASK 2.4 Evaluate Feasibility of Passing Sidings as Alternative to Double

Tracking LIST OF TABS TAB 9 EVALUATE TRACK GEOMETRY IMPROVEMENTS TAB 10 EVALUATE FEASIBILITY OF DOUBLE TRACKING TAB 11 EVALUATE FEASIBILITY OF PASSING SIDINGS AS AN

ALTERNATIVE TO DOUBLE TRACKING TAB 12 CONCEPTUAL SERVICE REVISIONS TAB 12 FIGURES, TABLES AND APPENDICES TAB 13 FIGURES: SOUTH NORWALK - DANBURY TAB 14 TABLES: SOUTH NORWALK - DANBURY TAB 15 FIGURES: DANBURY - NEW MILFORD TAB 16 TABLES: DANBURY - NEW MILFORD TAB 17 FIGURES: SOUTH NORWALK - NEW MILFORD TAB 18 APPENDIX A COST ESTIMATE: SOUTH NORWALK -

DANBURY TAB 19 APPENDIX B COST ESTIMATE: DANBURY - NEW MILFORD

SECTION PAGE 1.0 EVALUATE TRACK GEOMETRY IMPROVEMENTS………………7 1.1 SOUTH NORWALK – DANBURY………………………………….....…7 1.1.1 Overview of Existing Geometry………………………………………….. 7 1.1.1.1 Existing Route 1.1.1.2 Profile and Grades 1.1.1.3 Curvature, Superelevation, Underbalance 1.1.1.4 Horizontal and Vertical Clearances 1.1.1.5 Overhead and Undergrade Bridges 1.1.1.6 Railroad Highway Grade Crossings 1.1.2 Overview of Existing Operations…………………………………………10 1.1.2.1 MNR Station Stops 1.1.2.2 MNR Commuter Rail Service 1.1.2.3 MNR Operations 1.1.2.4 MNR Train Crews 1.1.2.5 MNR Equipment / Size of Consists


2

1.1.2.6 MNR Equipment Maintenance 1.1.2.7 Calculated Trip Times 1.1.2.8 P&W Freight Operations 1.1.3 Improvements to Reduce Running Times………………………………..13 1.1.3.1 Track Geometry 1.1.3.2 Railroad Signal System 1.1.3.3 Reconfiguration of MNR New Haven Line at CP 241 1.1.4 Improvements to Reduce Running Times by 5 Minutes………………..16 1.1.4.1 Increase Superelevation and Underbalance on Specific Curves 1.1.4.2 Install High Level Platform at Merritt 7 1.1.4.3 Modify Existing Signal System 1.1.4.4 Cost Estimate 1.1.4.5 Summary 1.1.5 Improvements to Reduce Running Times by 10 Minutes………………19 1.1.5.1 Overview 1.1.5.2 Construction Locations 1.1.5.3 Cost Estimate 1.1.5.4 Summary 1.1.6 Improvements to Reduce Running Time by 15 Minutes…………………24 1.1.6.1 Overview 1.1.6.2 Construction Locations 1.1.6.3 Cost Estimate 1.1.6.4 Summary 1.2 DANBURY – NEW MILFORD……………………………………………28 1.2.1 Overview of Existing Geometry……………………………………………28 1.2.1.1 Existing Route 1.2.1.2 Profile and Grade 1.2.1.3 Curvature, Superelevation, Underbalance 1.2.1.4 Horizontal and Vertical Clearances 1.2.1.5 Overhead and Undergrade Bridges 1.2.2 Overview of Existing Operations…………………………………………..31 1.2.2.1 Freight Service 1.2.2.2 Operations 1.2.2.3 Estimated MNR Running Times 1.2.3 Improvements to Reduce Running Times by 5 Minutes…………………33 1.2.3.1 Upgrade Track 1.2.3.2 Housatonic River Bridge 1.2.3.3 Increase Superelevation and Underbalance on Specific Curves 1.2.3.4 Cost Estimate 1.2.3.5 Summary 1.2.4 Improvements to Reduce Running Times by 10 Minutes………………..37 1.2.4.1 Implement Previously Identified Improvements to Reduce Running Time 1.2.4.2 Additional Superelevation 1.2.4.3 Cost Estimate


3

1.2.4.4 Summary 1.2.5 Improvements to Reduce Running Time by 15 Minutes…………………39 1.2.5.1 Implement Previously Identified Improvements to Reduce Running Time 1.2.5.2 Additional Superelevation 1.2.5.3 Install Signal System with Remote Control, Powered Turnouts at Danbury and

Berkshire Jct. 1.2.5.4 Cost Estimate 1.2.5.5 Summary 2.0 EVALUATE FEASIBILITY OF DOUBLE TRACKING……………….43 2.1 SOUTH NORWALK – DANBURY……………………………………….43 2.1.1 Existing Alignment…………………………………………………………43 2.1.1.1 Overview 2.1.1.2 Construction Considerations 2.1.1.3 Cost Estimate 2.1.2 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time

By 5 Minutes………………………………………………………………..46 2.1.2.1 Overview 2.1.2.2 Construction Considerations 2.1.2.3 Cost Estimate 2.1.3 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time

By 10 Minutes………………………………………………………………47 2.1.3.1 Overview 2.1.3.2 Construction Considerations 2.1.3.3 Cost Estimate 2.1.4 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time

By 15 Minutes……………………………………………………………….49 2.1.4.1 Overview 2.1.4.2 Construction Considerations 2.1.4.3 Cost Estimate 2.2 DANBURY – NEW MILFORD……………………………………………51 2.2.1 Existing Alignment………………………………………………………….51 2.2.1.1 Overview 2.2.1.2 Construction Considerations 2.2.1.3 Cost Estimate


4

2.2.2 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time by 5 and 10 Minutes………………………………………………………………………54

2.2.2.1 Overview 2.2.2.2 Construction Considerations 2.2.2.3 Cost Estimate 2.1.3 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time

By 15 Minutes……………………………………………………………….55 2.2.3.1 Overview 2.2.3.2 Construction Considerations 2.2.3.3 Cost Estimate 3.0 EVALUATE FEASIBILITY OF PASSING SIDINGS AS AN

ALTERNATIVE TO DOUBLE TRACKING……………………………57 3.1 APPROACH USED TO LOCATE PASSING SIDINGS………………..57 3.1.1 Passing Sidings vs. Double Track…………………………………………57 3.1.2 String Line Diagrams………………………………………………………58 3.1.3 Passing Siding Locations: 5-Minute Reduction in Running Time……..58 3.1.4 Passing Siding Locations: 10-Minute Reduction in Running Time……59 3.1.5 Passing Siding Locations: 15-Minute Reduction in Running Time……59 3.2 PROPOSED LENGTHS OF PASSING SIDINGS……………………….59 3.2.1 Short “Meet” Sidings…..…………………………………………………..59 3.2.2 Long “Roll By” Sidings…………………………………………………….59 3.3 COST ESTIMATES FOR PASSING SIDINGS:

SOUTH NORWALK – DANBURY; DANBURY – NEW MILFORD…60 3.3.1 Cost Estimate Assumptions………………………………………………..60 3.3.2 Proposed Reduction in Running Time of 5 Minutes……………………..61 3.3.2.1 Short “Meet” Sidings 3.3.2.2 Long “Roll By” Sidings 3.3.3 Proposed Reduction in Running Time of 10 Minutes……………………62 3.3.3.1 Short “Meet” Sidings 3.3.3.2 Long “Roll By” Sidings 3.3.4 Proposed Reduction in Running Time of 15 Minutes……………………63 3.3.4.1 Short “Meet” Sidings 3.3.4.2 Long “Roll By” Sidings


5

4.0 CONCEPTUAL SERVICE REVISIONS…………………………………65 5.0 FIGURES, TABLES AND APPENDICES………………………………..67 5.1 FIGURES: South Norwalk - Danbury

Figure SND-1, Location Map Figure SND-2, MNR Track Charts Figure SND-3, String Line Diagrams of Current Schedules Figure SND-4, Existing Maximum Allowable Speed with Speed Restrictions Figure SND-5, Existing Speed vs. Time Figure SND–6, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 5-Minute Reduction Figure SND-7, Increased Speed vs. Time for 5-Minute Reduction Figure SND-8, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 10-Minute

Reduction Figure SND-9, Increased Speed vs. Time for 10-Minute Reduction Figure SND-10, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 15-Minute Reduction Figure SND-11, Increased Speed vs. Time for 15-Minute Reduction

5.2 TABLES: South Norwalk - Danbury

Table SND-1, Existing Curve Data Table SND-2, Bridges and Major Culverts Table SND-3, Railroad Highway Grade Crossings Table SND-4, Curve Data Chart: Proposed 60 MPH Operations

5.3 FIGURES: Danbury – New Milford

Figure DNM-1, Location Map Figure DNM-2, HRRC Track Charts Figure DNM-3, Existing Maximum Allowable Speed with Speed Restrictions Figure DNM-4, Existing Speed vs. Time Figure DNM-5, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 5-Minute Reduction Figure DNM-6, Increased Speed vs. Time for 5-Minute Reduction Figure DNM-7, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 10-Minute

Reduction Figure DNM-8, Increased Speed vs. Time for 10-Minute Reduction Figure DNM-9, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 15-Minute

Reduction Figure DNM-10, Increased Speed vs. Time for 15-Minute Reduction

5.4 TABLES: Danbury – New Milford


6

Table DNM-1, Existing Curve Data Table DNM-2, Bridges and Major Culverts Table DNM-3, Railroad Highway Grade Crossings Table DNM-4, Curve Data Chart: Proposed 40 MPH Operations Table DNM-5, Curve Data Chart: Proposed 50 MPH Operations Table DNM-6, Curve Data Chart: Proposed 60 MPH Operations

5.5 FIGURES: South Norwalk – New Milford

Figure SNNM-1, String Line Diagrams for Proposed 5 Minute Reduction in Running Time



5.6 APPENDIX A Cost Estimate: South Norwalk - Danbury 5.7 APPENDIX B Cost Estimate: Danbury – New Milford

Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Gannett Fleming Transit & Rail Systems Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS TASK 2.2 Evaluate Track Geometry Improvements TASK 2.3 Evaluate Feasibility of Double Tracking TASK 2.4 Evaluate Feasibility of Passing Sidings as Alternative to Double

Tracking

LIST OF TABS TAB 9 EVALUATE TRACK GEOMETRY IMPROVEMENTS TAB 10 EVALUATE FEASIBILITY OF DOUBLE TRACKING TAB 11 EVALUATE FEASIBILITY OF PASSING SIDINGS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO

DOUBLE TRACKING TAB 12 CONCEPTUAL SERVICE REVISIONS TAB 12 FIGURES, TABLES AND APPENDICES TAB 13 FIGURES: SOUTH NORWALK - DANBURY TAB 14 TABLES: SOUTH NORWALK - DANBURY TAB 15 FIGURES: DANBURY - NEW MILFORD TAB 16 TABLES: DANBURY - NEW MILFORD TAB 17 FIGURES: SOUTH NORWALK - NEW MILFORD TAB 18 APPENDIX A COST ESTIMATE: SOUTH NORWALK - DANBURY TAB 19 APPENDIX B COST ESTIMATE: DANBURY - NEW MILFORD

SECTION PAGE 1.0 EVALUATE TRACK GEOMETRY IMPROVEMENTS………………7 1.1 SOUTH NORWALK – DANBURY………………………………….....…7 1.1.1 Overview of Existing Geometry………………………………………….. 7 1.1.1.1 Existing Route 1.1.1.2 Profile and Grades 1.1.1.3 Curvature, Superelevation, Underbalance 1.1.1.4 Horizontal and Vertical Clearances 1.1.1.5 Overhead and Undergrade Bridges 1.1.1.6 Railroad Highway Grade Crossings 1.1.2 Overview of Existing Operations…………………………………………10 1.1.2.1 MNR Station Stops 1.1.2.2 MNR Commuter Rail Service 1.1.2.3 MNR Operations 1.1.2.4 MNR Train Crews 1.1.2.5 MNR Equipment / Size of Consists 1.1.2.6 MNR Equipment Maintenance 1.1.2.7 Calculated Trip Times


2

1.1.2.8 P&W Freight Operations 1.1.3 Improvements to Reduce Running Times………………………………..13 1.1.3.1 Track Geometry 1.1.3.2 Railroad Signal System 1.1.3.3 Reconfiguration of MNR New Haven Line at CP 241 1.1.4 Improvements to Reduce Running Times by 5 Minutes………………..16 1.1.4.1 Increase Superelevation and Underbalance on Specific Curves 1.1.4.2 Install High Level Platform at Merritt 7 1.1.4.3 Modify Existing Signal System 1.1.4.4 Cost Estimate 1.1.4.5 Summary 1.1.5 Improvements to Reduce Running Times by 10 Minutes………………19 1.1.5.1 Overview 1.1.5.2 Construction Locations 1.1.5.3 Cost Estimate 1.1.5.4 Summary 1.1.6 Improvements to Reduce Running Time by 15 Minutes…………………24 1.1.6.1 Overview 1.1.6.2 Construction Locations 1.1.6.3 Cost Estimate 1.1.6.4 Summary 1.2 DANBURY – NEW MILFORD……………………………………………28 1.2.1 Overview of Existing Geometry……………………………………………28 1.2.1.1 Existing Route 1.2.1.2 Profile and Grade 1.2.1.3 Curvature, Superelevation, Underbalance 1.2.1.4 Horizontal and Vertical Clearances 1.2.1.5 Overhead and Undergrade Bridges 1.2.2 Overview of Existing Operations…………………………………………..31 1.2.2.1 Freight Service 1.2.2.2 Operations 1.2.2.3 Estimated MNR Running Times 1.2.3 Improvements to Reduce Running Times by 5 Minutes…………………33 1.2.3.1 Upgrade Track 1.2.3.2 Housatonic River Bridge 1.2.3.3 Increase Superelevation and Underbalance on Specific Curves 1.2.3.4 Cost Estimate 1.2.3.5 Summary 1.2.4 Improvements to Reduce Running Times by 10 Minutes………………..37 1.2.4.1 Implement Previously Identified Improvements to Reduce Running Time 1.2.4.2 Additional Superelevation 1.2.4.3 Cost Estimate 1.2.4.4 Summary 1.2.5 Improvements to Reduce Running Time by 15 Minutes…………………39


3

1.2.5.1 Implement Previously Identified Improvements to Reduce Running Time 1.2.5.2 Additional Superelevation 1.2.5.3 Install Signal System with Remote Control, Powered Turnouts at Danbury and

Berkshire Jct. 1.2.5.4 Cost Estimate 1.2.5.5 Summary 2.0 EVALUATE FEASIBILITY OF DOUBLE TRACKING……………….43 2.1 SOUTH NORWALK – DANBURY……………………………………….43 2.1.1 Existing Alignment…………………………………………………………43 2.1.1.1 Overview 2.1.1.2 Construction Considerations 2.1.1.3 Cost Estimate 2.1.2 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time

By 5 Minutes………………………………………………………………..46 2.1.2.1 Overview 2.1.2.2 Construction Considerations 2.1.2.3 Cost Estimate 2.1.3 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time

By 10 Minutes………………………………………………………………47 2.1.3.1 Overview 2.1.3.2 Construction Considerations 2.1.3.3 Cost Estimate 2.1.4 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time

By 15 Minutes……………………………………………………………….49 2.1.4.1 Overview 2.1.4.2 Construction Considerations 2.1.4.3 Cost Estimate 2.2 DANBURY – NEW MILFORD……………………………………………51 2.2.1 Existing Alignment………………………………………………………….51 2.2.1.1 Overview 2.2.1.2 Construction Considerations 2.2.1.3 Cost Estimate 2.2.2 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time by 5 and 10

Minutes………………………………………………………………………54 2.2.2.1 Overview 2.2.2.2 Construction Considerations 2.2.2.3 Cost Estimate 2.1.3 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time

By 15 Minutes……………………………………………………………….55 2.2.3.1 Overview


4

2.2.3.2 Construction Considerations 2.2.3.3 Cost Estimate 3.0 EVALUATE FEASIBILITY OF PASSING SIDINGS AS AN

ALTERNATIVE TO DOUBLE TRACKING……………………………57 3.1 APPROACH USED TO LOCATE PASSING SIDINGS………………..57 3.1.1 Passing Sidings vs. Double Track…………………………………………57 3.1.2 String Line Diagrams………………………………………………………58 3.1.3 Passing Siding Locations: 5-Minute Reduction in Running Time……..58 3.1.4 Passing Siding Locations: 10-Minute Reduction in Running Time……59 3.1.5 Passing Siding Locations: 15-Minute Reduction in Running Time……59 3.2 PROPOSED LENGTHS OF PASSING SIDINGS……………………….59 3.2.1 Short “Meet” Sidings…..…………………………………………………..59 3.2.2 Long “Roll By” Sidings…………………………………………………….59 3.3 COST ESTIMATES FOR PASSING SIDINGS:

SOUTH NORWALK – DANBURY; DANBURY – NEW MILFORD…60 3.3.1 Cost Estimate Assumptions………………………………………………..60 3.3.2 Proposed Reduction in Running Time of 5 Minutes……………………..61 3.3.2.1 Short “Meet” Sidings 3.3.2.2 Long “Roll By” Sidings 3.3.3 Proposed Reduction in Running Time of 10 Minutes……………………62 3.3.3.1 Short “Meet” Sidings 3.3.3.2 Long “Roll By” Sidings 3.3.4 Proposed Reduction in Running Time of 15 Minutes……………………63 3.3.4.1 Short “Meet” Sidings 3.3.4.2 Long “Roll By” Sidings 4.0 CONCEPTUAL SERVICE REVISIONS…………………………………65 5.0 FIGURES, TABLES AND APPENDICES………………………………..67 5.1 FIGURES: South Norwalk - Danbury

Figure SND-1, Location Map Figure SND-2, MNR Track Charts Figure SND-3, String Line Diagrams of Current Schedules Figure SND-4, Existing Maximum Allowable Speed with Speed Restrictions


5

Figure SND-5, Existing Speed vs. Time Figure SND–6, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 5-Minute

Reduction Figure SND-7, Increased Speed vs. Time for 5-Minute Reduction Figure SND-8, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 10-Minute





Figure DNM-1, Location Map Figure DNM-2, HRRC Track Charts Figure DNM-3, Existing Maximum Allowable Speed with Speed Restrictions Figure DNM-4, Existing Speed vs. Time Figure DNM-5, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 5-Minute








6




5.6 APPENDIX A Cost Estimate: South Norwalk - Danbury 5.7 APPENDIX B Cost Estimate: Danbury – New Milford


7

1.0 EVALUATE TRACK GEOMETRY IMPROVEMENTS 1.1 SOUTH NORWALK – DANBURY 1.1.1 Overview of Existing Geometry 1.1.1.1 Existing Route The Danbury Branch, depicted in Figure SND-1, Location Map, is a single-track main line, approximately 24.2 route-miles in length, which connects the cities of Norwalk and Danbury. The railroad and right-of-way is owned by the State of Connecticut. MTA Metro North Railroad (MNR) provides commuter rail service over the Danbury Branch under contract to Connecticut Department of Transportation. The Providence & Worcester Railroad has trackage rights over the line to provide freight service. The south end of the Danbury Branch starts at Mile Post (MP) 0.0, where the line connects directly with the MNR New Haven Line interlocking designated CP 241. The MNR South Norwalk station is located on the New Haven Line, approximately 0.3 miles railroad-south of CP 241. The Connecticut Department of Transportation’s ownership of the Danbury Branch extends northward from MP 0.0, Norwalk, to MP 24.2, White Street, in Danbury. MNR commuter rail service terminates at the MNR Danbury station, MP 23.3. The Danbury Branch parallels the Housatonic Railroad Company (HRRC) Maybrook Line between MP 23.6 and MP 24.2. A crossover connects the MNR and HRRC. HRRC provides freight service over the Maybrook Line through Danbury; commuter rail service is not operated over this line. The proposed extension of commuter rail service over the Maybrook Line from Danbury northward to New Milford is addressed later in this report. Today’s Danbury Branch was originally constructed in the 1850’s as the Danbury & Norwalk Railroad. The overall railroad alignment has not been appreciably upgraded since the original construction and the current alignment reflects the narrow right-of-way and numerous curves typical of earlier railroad construction. The railroad generally follows the Norwalk River, northward from Norwalk, for 15 miles. Between MP 15 and MP 16, approximately midway between Branchville and Redding, the Danbury Branch crosses over the ridgeline separating the Norwalk River and Sympaug Brook. Between Redding and Danbury, the railroad generally follows Sympaug Brook and Still River. 1.1.1.2 Profile and Grades Referring to Figure SND-2, MNR Track Charts, the existing Danbury Branch profile (vertical alignment) consists of four major segments:

• The line descends at an estimated average grade of 0.4 % between South Norwalk (MP 0.0) and the Wall Street tunnel (MP 1.5). The longest sustained grade, as


8

well as the maximum grade on this segment is 0.76%, descending between MP 0.2 and MP 0.7.

• The line ascends between Wall Street tunnel (MP 1.5) and Topstone Road grade crossing (MP 15.0) at an estimated average grade of 0.6 %. Maximum grades are 1.33% (MP 1.6 – MP 2.1) and 1.27% (MP 12.8 – MP 13.1, MP 14.1 – MP 14.3). The longest sustained grade is 1.20% between MP 13.1 (Branchville) and MP 14.1.

• The line descends at an estimated average grade of 0.5 % between Topstone Road grade crossing (MP 15.0) and MP 17.5 (Redding). The maximum grade is 1.30% between MP 16.8 and MP 17.1.

• The line generally consists of a rolling profile between MP 17.5 (Redding) and MP 23.3 (Danbury). The estimated average grade on this segment is 0.1% (descending toward Danbury). The longest sustained grade, as well as maximum grade, on this segment is 1.25% (descending) between MP 17.8 and MP 18.4.

The profile and grades of the Danbury Branch are typical of other commuter rail operations in the United States. Due to the short consists operated on the line, currently 2 – 7 cars, the profile and grades generally do not pose any unusual operating concerns for MNR. However, it is noted that trains may run occasionally run later than scheduled due to certain conditions, such as weather (snow and heavy rain), leaf slippage during the Autumn, and unforeseen track and equipment problems (such as a broken rail or sticking brakes on a coach). 1.1.1.3 Curvature, Superelevation, Underbalance Ideally, a railroad should be constructed on tangent (straight) track and level grade as much as possible. However, right-of-way availability and construction considerations, particularly in difficult topographic and geologic locations, often results in the use of curves and grades to reduce construction costs. Referring to Figure SND-2, MNR Track Charts, the Danbury Branch horizontal alignment consists of 62 curves. Table SND-1, Existing Curve Data, provides geometry data for each curve that is shown on the track charts. Geometry often dictates the maximum speed that a train can negotiate over a specific curve. The data depicted in Table SND-1 was used in developing run times for this study. An analysis of the curve data noted the following:

• An estimated 9.8 miles of the 23.3-mile route between South Norwalk and Danbury is constructed on curves; or, approximately 42% of the total route.

• The maximum degree of curvature on the line is the 17˚ Loop Track at Danbury (however, MNR revenue trains do not operate on this curve). The curve with the next greatest degree of curvature is a compound curve of 9˚40’ and 5˚00’in Norwalk, just south of the Wall Street tunnel. The maximum allowable speed over this curve is 25 mph.


9

• 42 of the 62 curves between South Norwalk and Danbury are 3˚00’ or greater. In general, the maximum allowable speed on a 3˚ 00’ curve is 50 mph; the maximum allowable speed generally decreases as the degree of curvature increases.

MNR criteria for establishing the maximum allowable speed on curves are detailed in their document, “MW 4, Manual for Construction, Maintenance and Inspection of Track.” MNR’s preferred maximum superelevation is 4 inches at 1.5 inches underbalance. Additional superelevation and/or underbalance may be provided with approval of the MNR Chief Engineer Maintenance of Way. Superelevation and underbalance are further discussed in Section 1.1.3.1 of this report. 1.1.1.4 Horizontal and Vertical Clearances The State of Connecticut has certain legal clearance requirements that railroads must maintain. Minimum requirements, based on level, tangent track, include:

• Track Centers: 13’ – 0” between main tracks, 15’ – 0” between main track and adjacent subsidiary track.

• Vertical clearances: 22’ – 6” between top of rail and bottom of structure (such as a highway bridge or tunnel ceiling). Exceptions may be granted to permit a reduction in vertical clearances.

• Horizontal clearances: 8’ -6” from centerline of track to face of obstruction (such as thru bridges and retaining walls), 5’ - 7” at high-level station platforms.

These dimensions would have to be increased on curves to account for superelevation, and mid-body overhang and end overhang of the rail cars. It may also be desirable to widen track centers above the preferred minimum on curves where degree of curvature becomes a consideration. Several tight horizontal and vertical clearances currently exist on the Danbury Branch, including various rock cuts, overhead highway bridges and the Wall Street Tunnel in Norwalk. Any modification to an existing track alignment or construction of new track would have to ensure that legal clearance requirements were taken into consideration. 1.1.1.5 Overhead and Undergrade Bridges The Danbury Branch utilizes 24 undergrade bridges (including two major box culverts) to cross over waterways and highways. Ten overhead bridges, including the Wall Street Tunnel, convey roadways over the railroad. Most undergrade bridges are of deck girder, open deck construction. The Danbury Branch crosses the Norwalk River at six locations and the Still River at three locations. The bridges and major box culverts located on the Danbury Branch are listed in Table SND-2.


10

1.1.1.6 Railroad Highway Grade Crossings The Danbury Branch is crossed at grade by 25 public highways and eight private crossings. All pubic crossings are provided with flashing light warning devises; 18 of these crossings are also provided with crossing gates. One of the private crossings is provided with flashing lights, the remaining private crossings are provided with signs. The railroad – highway grade crossings are listed in Table SND-3. 1.1.2 Overview of Existing Operations 1.1.2.1 MNR Station Stops Referring to Figure SND-1, Location Map, and Figure SND-2, MNR Track Charts, MNR station stops are currently provided at:

• South Norwalk: MP 41.0 (New Haven Line), Pocket tracks with 2-car platform for Danbury shuttle, and 7-car platform on the New Haven Line.

• Merritt 7 (Merritt Parkway, U.S. 7): MP 3.7, 7-car platform capacity. • Wilton: MP 7.4, 4-car platform capacity. • Cannondale: MP 8.9, 2-car platform capacity. • Branchville: MP12.8, 3-car platform capacity. • Redding: MP 17.3, 2-car platform capacity. • Bethel: MP 21.0, 5-car platform capacity. • Danbury: MP 23.6, 3-car platform capacity.

Merritt 7 is provided with a low level platform. The South Norwalk platforms and all other platforms on the Danbury Branch are high-level platforms. The analysis of the proposed reduction in running time that is discussed later in this report is based on these current station stops. Some of the existing stations could require relocation on to new alignments, because of the proposed alignment changes associated with reducing the running time. The analysis of running time assumes that the number of station stops will not change; however, it is noted that a new station at Georgetown is under discussion with a private developer. 1.1.2.2 MNR Commuter Rail Service MNR provides southbound (inbound) service between: 1) Danbury and South Norwalk; 2) Danbury and Stamford; and 3) Danbury and Grand Central Terminal. Currently, ten weekday trains operate southbound between Danbury and South Norwalk. The first three trains continue inbound to Grand Central Terminal. The next three trains continue inbound to Stamford. The remaining four trains operate in the afternoon and evening; these trains terminate at South Norwalk where connections are scheduled with New Haven Line service.


11

Similarly, MNR provides northbound (outbound) service between: 1) Grand Central Terminal and Danbury; 2) Stamford and Danbury; and, 3) South Norwalk and Danbury. Currently, ten weekday trains operate northbound between South Norwalk and Danbury. Three evening trains originate in Grand Central Terminal, two trains originate in Stamford and five trains originate from South Norwalk where connections are scheduled from New Haven Line service. Weekend service consists of six inbound and six outbound trains on both Saturday and Sunday. These trains shuttle between Danbury and South Norwalk where connections are scheduled with New Haven Line service. The MNR weekday schedules (effective April 27, 2003 through October 25, 2003) are depicted in Figure SND-3, String Line Diagrams of Current Schedules. Scheduled running times between South Norwalk and Danbury, per public timetables, vary from 47 minutes to 55 minutes. The mid-day shuttle trains run on the 47-minute schedules; the inbound morning and outbound evening peak trains have the longer schedules, 54 minutes or two 55-minute trains that have scheduled meets. MNR employee timetable data indicates that the current, maximum allowable speed on the Danbury Branch is 50 mph. In addition, the employee timetable lists a number of speed restrictions on the Danbury Branch. The listed maximum speeds are primarily governed by curvature. Figure SND-4, Existing Maximum Allowable Speed with Speed Restrictions, depicts maximum allowable speed versus milepost location. The speed data is based on MNR employee timetables. The analysis that was used to determine the location of proposed passing sidings, discussed later in this report, is based on the current weekday schedules and proposed reductions in running times. 1.1.2.3 MNR Operations The Danbury Branch operates under manual block rules. Block limit stations are located at BERK (MP 0.3, South Norwalk), DOCK (MP 0.8, South Norwalk), GLOVE (MP 3.6, Merritt 7), WILT (MP 7.3, Wilton), HILL (MP 12.7, Branchville), DAN (MP 23.1, Danbury) and CANAL (MP 23.7, Danbury). The block limit stations are used to define the limits of track that a train can occupy. The minimum scheduled running time, including station stops, between following or opposing trains is usually determined by the longest block. The longest block on the Danbury Branch is between HILL and DAN, only one train can operate in this block at a time, running time in this block, including station stops is 25 minutes. Block limit stations are also used to facilitate track inspection, maintenance and repair. These block limit stations are generally unstaffed and are assigned to the dispatcher specified in the MNR employee timetable. Passing sidings are located at South Norwalk (MP 0.1 to MP 0.6), Wilton (MP 7.0 to MP 7.4), Branchville (MP 12.7 to MP 13.0) and Danbury (MP 23.0 to MP 23.8). The


12

turnouts leading to these sidings are manually operated by either the train crews or temporary block operators. Currently, there are two scheduled meets per day. Train Nos. 1881 and 1844 meet at WILT block station at 5:44 p.m., weekdays. Train Nos. 1893 and 1882 meet at WILT block station at 9:29 p.m., weekdays. Both meets utilize the Wilton passing siding. The design of a signal system for the Danbury Branch was recently completed. The passing sidings at South Norwalk, Wilton, Branchville and Danbury would be interlocked and remote controlled by MNR. This report assumes that this signal system will be in operation by the time any reduction in running time was implemented. 1.1.2.4 MNR Train Crews Nine regular crews work the Danbury Branch. Eight crews work the weekdays and one crew works on the weekends. Crews are comprised of an engineer, conductor and assistant conductor. Crews are headquartered in Danbury. 1.1.2.5 MNR Equipment / Size of Consists Three large sets of equipment operate on the Danbury Branch for through service to and from Grand Central Terminal during the morning and evening peaks. These equipment consists are comprised of one seven-car consist and two six-car consists utilizing Bombardier coaches. These three consists are typically powered by one Genesis locomotive or with two FL-9 locomotives operating in a push – pull configuration. The off-peak trains, referred to as shuttles, consist of two coaches with two FL-9 locomotives in push – pull configurations. 1.1.2.6 MNR Equipment Maintenance Consists assigned to Danbury service are stored at Danbury. Coach cleaning and minor repairs such as replacing brake shoes are carried out at Danbury. Fueling of locomotives used in weekday service is carried out at various MNR sites as the equipment is recycled. Fueling of locomotives used in weekend service is carried out at Danbury. 1.1.2.7 Calculated Trip Times As part of this study, a calculated base run time was developed in order to analyze the effect of proposed track geometry changes on trip time reduction. The calculated base run time was developed using the following assumptions: 1) each train will operate at the current maximum allowable speeds as noted in the MNR track charts and employees timetable; 2) motive power will consist of General Electric Genesis diesel locomotives, these locomotives will accelerate and brake at their initial rates (accelerate and brake at 1.50 mph/sec., data provided by MNR) rather than maximum rates (accelerate and brake at 2.00 mph/sec., data provided by MNR); 3) all station stops are made with an average


13

station dwell time of 60 second per station; and 4) there will not be any opposing trains to contend with (i.e. no meets). Using this information, the base run time between South Norwalk and Danbury is calculated at 44.86 minutes (rounded to 45 minutes). The public timetable minimum run time of 47 minutes for the mid-day shuttle trains is a favorable comparison of calculated to actual trip time. It must be recognized that the calculated 45-minute base run time represents a theoretical operation during ideal conditions. Contingency for unforeseen situations, such as weather and larger than normal passenger loads is not included in the base run time. Figure SND-5, Existing Speed vs. Time, depicts the base run time versus existing maximum allowable speed. For each of the three (3) alternate alignments a trip time was calculated in a like manner. Track speeds were increased as determined by the new track geometry but acceleration and braking rates and station stops were maintained as in the base trip time calculation. Those trip times and related charts are presented later in this report. 1.1.2.8 P&W Freight Operations The Providence & Worcester Railroad has trackage rights on the MNR Danbury Branch and provides freight service to on-line industries. Currently the only on-line freight customer is located at Bethel. P&W accesses the Danbury Branch by way of the Housatonic Railroad’s Maybrook Line at Danbury. P&W Local CT-2 serves one industry in Danbury (located on the Maybrook Line) and operates over the north end of the Danbury Branch between Danbury and Bethel. This train operates to a local industry at Bethel, on an as required basis, on weekdays, shortly after midnight. Generally, the P&W does not operate south of Bethel; however, during Maybrook Line track outages the P&W will run between South Norwalk and Danbury. This analysis of proposed reductions in running time discussed later in this report assumes that future freight operations will continue to operate late at night so as not to interfere with commuter rail service. 1.1.3 Improvements to Reduce Running Times 1.1.3.1 Track Geometry This report identifies potential improvements to the existing track geometry for reducing current running times by approximately 5, 10 and 15 minutes on the MNR Danbury Branch. The proposed improvements considered existing grades, curvature, superelevation, clearances and grade crossings. Referring to Figure SND-4, Existing Maximum Allowable Speed with Speed Restrictions, and Figure SND-5, Existing Speed vs. Time, the estimated base running time between South Norwalk and Danbury is 45


14

minutes. The track geometry improvements discussed in this report will enable an increase in the maximum allowable speed, which in-turn would enable a reduction from the base running time of 45 minutes. Today’s maximum allowable speeds on the MNR Danbury Branch are generally governed by curvature. Three methods are available for increasing the maximum allowable speed through a curve: 1) increasing superelevation in the curve and lengthening the spirals; 2) reducing the degree of curvature in order to provide a broader curve (as an example, a 2˚00’ curve is broader (“flatter” and longer) than a 3˚00’ curve); or, 3) a combination of reducing the degree of curvature and increasing superelevation. Superelevation of a curve is the vertical distance between the top of the inner rail (low rail) and the top of the outer rail (high rail) and is usually expressed in inches. The amount of superelevation is determined by the degree of curvature and intended train speed. MNR’s preferred maximum superelevation is 4 inches; the absolute maximum allowable superelevation is 6 inches. Therefore, it may be necessary to provide a broader curve if it is not possible to provide additional superelevation on existing curves (as an example, an existing curve may already be superelevated to 6 inches). In addition to superelevation, underbalance must be considered. Underbalance is the arithmetic difference between the theoretical superelevation and the actual superelevation as measured in the field. The theoretical superelevation fully counteracts, or balances, the centrifugal force in a train as the train negotiates a curve. In ideal conditions, the theoretical superelevation is preferred; however, actual conditions are never ideal. Railroad curves are not usually elevated to the theoretical superelevation because: 1) trains may run at slower speeds through the curve (due to various reasons, such as heavier than normal passenger or freight loads, weather conditions or slowing for station stops located on curves); 2) the desire to minimize rail wear and degradation of track line and surface; and, 3) other track and train dynamics issues. MNR prefers a maximum underbalance of 1.5 inches, but may approve an underbalance of up to 3 inches. The lower underbalance favors passenger comfort (less noticeable lateral forces to the passenger when traveling around the curve) and minimizes wear and tear on the track structure and wheel sets; the higher underbalance allows higher speeds through curves. Alignments with tighter curves often require less costly earthwork construction than alignments constructed with broader curves. As previously mentioned, 42 of the 62 curves on the Danbury Branch are 3º 00' or greater. In general, the maximum allowable speed on a 3˚ 00' curve is 50 mph; the maximum allowable speed generally decreases as the degree of curvature increases. A curve that is already provided with the maximum allowable superelevation and/or underbalance requires a reduction in the degree of curvature in order to increase speed on the curve. The reduction in the degree of curvature, say from 3º 00' to 1º 00', would permit a “broader” curve, which will allow for an increase in speed and a reduction in running time over the curve. To provide a “broader” curve it is necessary to laterally shift the curve inwards at the mid-point of the curve, which in-turn increases the length of


15

the curve. The distance that the curve is laterally shifted depends upon the existing and proposed degree of curvature and length for a given curve. The greater the existing degree of curvature, and the longer the existing curve, the more the curve has to be ‘pulled in” to reduce the curvature. The required shift can vary from a few inches upwards to several hundred feet. The greater the lateral shift, the more likely that existing cuts and fills have to be widened, right of way acquired, existing overhead and undergrade bridges will have to be modified, etc. The Danbury Branch consists of numerous curves. Short tangents separate many of the curves; many of these tangents are only a few hundred feet in length. In these situations, the pulling in of a curve by more than a few feet often requires changes to the adjacent curves. Often a new alignment is required because it is not possible to adequately realign consecutive curves and provide the design speeds. New alignments need to be considered that would replace consecutive curves with a broader curves and / or tangents. New alignments usually require right-of-way acquisition, site demolition and construction of new cuts, embankments, railroad drainage and track. Existing overhead bridges, undergrade bridges, grade crossings and adjacent railroad facilities may have to be modified or constructed on the new railroad alignment. The proposed geometry changes discussed in this report are based on our review of track charts, valuation maps and recent planimetric mapping provided by Connecticut Department of Transportation. The geometry changes proposed in this report are to be considered as conceptual and not a preliminary design. In order to further advance these recommendations it would be necessary to accurately survey and analyze the existing railroad alignment. That effort would verify whether the proposed geometry improvements discussed in this report can be reasonably carried out. The analysis would enable the development of a more refined cost estimate. 1.1.3.2 Railroad Signal System The Federal Railroad Administration requires that an automatic block signal system be in service on lines where passenger trains operate at speeds of 60 mph or greater. The South Norwalk – Danbury track geometry improvements proposed in this report would enable maximum allowable speeds of 60 mph or greater. The cost estimates developed for this report assume that the existing Danbury Branch will have an automatic signal system in service before the proposed geometry improvements are carried out. The signal system design was recently completed; however, construction has not yet started. The signal system design follows current MNR practice: block signal layout (cab signals without wayside block signals, wayside signals provided as interlocking home signals) and remote control, power-operated turnouts for major diverging moves. The signal system design is based on a conservative maximum allowable speed of 65 mph (this is considered a conservative design because the existing curvature cannot support speeds exceeding 50 mph).


16

As discussed later in this report, the proposed 5-minute reduction in run time consists of increasing the maximum speed to 60 mph over portions of the existing alignment. The automatic block signal system would not have to be changed since the alignment would not change and the maximum running speeds would be less than the signal system design speed of 65 mph. However, the proposed 10 and 15-minute reduction in run time requires construction of new alignments, which would require major modifications to the signal system. 1.1.3.3 Reconfiguration of MNR New Haven Line at CP 241 The Danbury Branch connects to the MNR New Haven Line at CP 241 by means of a No. 8 turnout. The MNR employee timetable stipulates that the maximum allowable speed over this turnout for trains operating to and from the Danbury Branch is 10 mph. CP 241 also consists of a series of crossovers that enable trains entering or leaving the Danbury Branch to access to any of the four main tracks on the New Haven Line. A short stub track leads off the New Haven Line to South Norwalk station; the Danbury – South Norwalk shuttle trains generally platform on this track rather than the main line platform. The northward New Haven Line is located on an embankment between South Norwalk station and the Norwalk River Bridge. In addition, the New Haven Line crosses over several local streets by means of undergrade bridges at this location. The situation is further complicated because the northward New Haven Line curves off to the right on a superelevated curve of 4˚ 04’ curvature while the Danbury Branch leads to the left off the New Haven Line on an a curve of 8˚ 20’. Any long-term improvements to running time on the Danbury Branch may want to consider re-alignment of the New Haven Line at this location in order to improve curvature and increase allowable speeds for trains entering and leaving the Branch. The realignment of the New Haven Line at this urban location would be a large undertaking. Right of way would need to be acquired. New undergrade bridges would need to be constructed and city streets modified. CP 241 would need to be relocated or reconfigured. The South Norwalk station may also have to be relocated or modified. This study assumes that the Danbury Line will continue to tie into the existing New Haven Line by way of the current No. 8 turnout. 1.1.4 Improvements to Reduce Running Times by 5 Minutes 1.1.4.1 Increase Superelevation and Underbalance on Specific Curves An analysis of MNR track chart data indicates that the maximum allowable speeds can be raised by 5 – 10 mph on certain curves by increasing superelevation and underbalance. This proposed modification would require modification to the existing track but would


17

not require new track construction or right of way acquisition. The proposed increase in speed on certain curves is based on two assumptions:

1) MNR will approve the increase in superelevation and unbalance. MNR’s Chief Engineer Maintenance of Way must approve superelevation in excess of 4 inches and underbalance in excess of 1.5 inches. The proposed increases in superelevation do not exceed 6 inches, the maximum allowable by MNR. The proposed increases in underbalance do not exceed 3 inches, the maximum allowable by MNR.

2) The increase in superelevation will require the lengthening of spirals. At locations where consecutive left-hand and right-hand curves (“reverse curves”) are separated by a short stretch of tangent it is assumed that the lengthened spirals will not result in a tangent length less than 100 ft.

The proposed increase in superelevation requires raising the outer rail on curves and lengthening the entrance and exit spirals on curves. However, right of way acquisition and track construction will not be required. The proposed increase in superelevation and underbalance will permit a maximum allowable speed of 60 mph at certain locations. It would not be possible to operate at speeds greater than 60 mph at these locations because the proposed superelevation and underbalance is at, or close to, the maximums allowed by MNR. The proposed increase in speed at various locations would require modifications to the affected grade crossings (due to increasing the superelevation of the curve through the crossing), grade crossing warning systems (lengthen crossing starts due to increased speeds) and open deck bridges (install new bridge timbers due to increasing the superelevation of curves over the bridge). Table SND – 4, Curve Data Chart: Proposed 60 MPH Operations, lists the curves that have been proposed for an increase in superelevation and underbalance. Figure SND – 6, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 5 Minute Reduction, indicates by milepost those locations where it is proposed to increase maximum allowable speeds by increasing superelevation and underbalance. Figure SND-7, Increased Speed vs. Time for 5 Minute Reduction, indicates the proposed running time based on the superelevation and underbalance changes. The estimated running time is 41.40 minutes (rounded to 42 minutes); the estimated existing running time, from Figure SD-5, is 45 minutes. The superelevation and underbalance changes would reduce running time by 3 minutes. The proposed increase in superelevation would require modifications to five grade crossings (Kent Rd., MP 4.93, Honey Hill Rd., MP 9.90 and three private grade crossings) and one open deck bridge (Norwalk River, MP 11.55). 1.1.4.2 Install High Level Platform at Merritt 7 It is proposed to replace the current low-level platform at Merritt 7 with a high level platform. Compared to low-level platforms, high level platforms enable faster and safer


18

loading and unloading of passengers and eliminate the need for the train crew to raise the doorway traps. This could reduce dwell times by up to 30 seconds on peak period trains at this stop. The timesavings would be less on off-peak trains. 1.1.4.3 Modify Existing Signal System It is assumed that a signal system would be in service by the time that the proposed superelevation improvements were carried out. The design of this signal system was recently completed and was designed for the following speeds:

• MP 0.0 - MP 2.9: 35 mph (passenger), 15 mph (freight) • MP 2.9 - MP 23.0: 65 mph (passenger), 35 mph (freight) • MP 23.0 - MP 23.3: 30 mph (passenger), 15 mph (freight)

The signal system design speeds were conservatively designed to be greater than the current maximum allowable speeds. Therefore, no major modifications would be required to the signal system since the current track alignment would be retained and the proposed maximum allowable speeds will not exceed 60 mph. (Note: the track geometry dictates the maximum allowable speed on the Danbury Branch, not the signal system). 1.1.4.4 Cost Estimate The estimated cost assumes that the platform work at Merritt 7 would be contracted out; the following track and signal work would be carried out by MNR force account. Major activities:

• Raise outer rail, replace down crossties, surface track: 5.8 track-miles, various locations (refer to Table SND-4).

• Raise track through five grade crossings, restore crossing surface. • Re-timber one open deck bridge. • Miscellaneous signal cable adjustments at 11 grade crossings that are to be

superelevated. • MNR-provided flag protection for the contractor installing the high-level platform

at Merritt 7.

Estimated costs:

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 0 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 0 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $1,100,000 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 75,000 TRACK $2,231,646 SIGNALS $ 494,494 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $3,901,140


19

10% DESIGN $ 390,114 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 585,171 40% CONTINGENCY $1,560,456 GRAND TOTAL $6,436,880 ROUNDED $6M

1.1.4.5 Summary An estimated 3.5 minute reduction in running time can be achieved by 1) increasing the superelevation and underbalance on certain curves to permit an increase in maximum allowable speeds at certain locations; and 2) installing a high level platform at the Merritt 7 station stop. The estimated cost associated with this railroad construction is $6M. In order to further advance these recommendations regarding changes to superelevation, it would be necessary to accurately survey and analyze the existing railroad alignment. That effort would verify actual degree of curvature and superelevation and would confirm that sufficient lengths of tangent track separate consecutive curves so that the proposed superelevation changes can be carried out. A reduction in running time of more than 3.5 minutes would require right of way acquisition and construction to realign various curves. Realignment of existing curves is discussed in the following sections of this report. 1.1.5 Improvements to Reduce Running Times by 10 Minutes 1.1.5.1 Overview The analysis of reducing running times by approximately 10 minutes concluded that major new construction would be required. The existing alignment has too many closely spaced curves that do not allow for changes in superelevation or minor realignment that permit higher speeds. A conceptual alignment was developed for the study that would provide a 10-minute reduction in the 45-minute base running time between South Norwalk and Danbury. The drawings that accompany this report depict a “Blue Alignment” which will enable a 35-minute running time. The following assumptions were used in developing the Blue Alignment:

• The maximum allowable speed will be 60 mph over the entire route with the exception of 10 mph running speeds at the South Norwalk and Danbury terminals.


20

• MNR will permit the use of 3-inch underbalance on curves. All proposed new curves are based on a maximum degree of curvature of 2˚ 45’. Proposed superelevation is 4 inches and proposed spiral length is 248 feet.

• Station stops will be made at all current stations. The assumed dwell time is 60 seconds per station. Note: As discussed later, the current alignment at Wilton would be changed, which would require moving the existing station at this location.

• Acceleration and braking are based on average rates (data provided by MNR). • Grades and profile of the Blue Alignment will not be any more restrictive than the

current alignment. • The existing alignment will be used as much as possible. • Curves on existing track that will be retained as part of the Blue Alignment will

be superelevated to permit 60 mph. Proposed underbalance and superelevation on these existing curves is detailed in Table SND-4, Curve Data Chart: Proposed 60 MPH Operations.

As detailed later in this report it is proposed to: 1) construct over 10 route miles of single-track on new alignment; and, 2) superelevate the curves on the existing track that will be retained in the final alignment to permit consistent running speeds of 60 mph. This in-turn will reduce running times between South Norwalk and Danbury by 10 minutes. Figure SND–8, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 10-Minute Reduction, indicates by milepost those locations where it is proposed to increase maximum allowable speeds by constructing track on a new alignment and increasing superelevation and underbalance on existing track. Figure SND-9, Increased Speed vs. Time for 10-Minute Reduction, indicates the proposed running time based on the new construction and the superelevation and underbalance changes to existing track. The estimated running time is 34.59 minutes (rounded to 35 minutes); the estimated existing running time, from Figure SD-5, is 45 minutes. Therefore, by constructing 10 route-miles of track on new alignment and modifying superelevation and underbalance on the curves of existing the 13 route-miles that would be retained, the running time between South Norwalk ands Danbury is reduced by 10 minutes. 1.1.5.2 Construction Locations An estimated 10.2 miles of new single-track alignment will be constructed. Right-of-way would have to be acquired for most of the new alignment. Numerous industrial, commercial and residential properties would have to be acquired and on-site buildings and facilities would have to be removed. Significant rock excavation will be required, particularly between Branchville and Bethel. Referring to the “Blue Alignment” depicted on the enclosed drawings, the following locations would require construction of new alignments (referenced by current milepost, municipality and proposed new curve designation):

• MP 0.0 – MP 0.5, Norwalk, Curves C1 and C2. New bridges required at UG 0.11 (Marshall St.) and UG 0.19 (Anne St.). Possible conflict with bridge piers at OH 0.54 (Interstate 95).


21

• MP 0.7 – MP 1.7, Norwalk, Curves C3 – C5. Requires a new bridge over the Norwalk River (to replace UG 1.54). The Wall Street Tunnel would be abandoned since it is not be on the new alignment. New bridges would be required on the new alignment to replace AG 1.33 (Commerce Street), OH 1.47 (Wall St.), OH 1.53 (Welton Place), UG 1.54 (Norwalk River) and AG 1.65 (Cross St.)

• MP 2.1 – MP 2.5, Norwalk, Curve C6. Minor modification to existing alignment, no new track construction anticipated.

• MP 2.8 – MP 3.3, Norwalk, Curves C7 and C8. Requires a new bridge over the Norwalk River (to replace UG 3.20). Possible conflict with bridge piers at OH 3.41 (Merritt Parkway).

• MP 3.7, Norwalk. New high-level platform at Merritt 7. • MP 3.7 – MP 4.3, Norwalk, Curves C-9 and C-10. Excavation required. • MP 4.7 – MP 4.9, Wilton, Curve C11. Excavation required. Grade-separate AG

4.93 (Kent Rd.). • MP 5.6 – MP 5.8, Wilton, Curve C12. Minor modification to existing alignment,

no new track construction anticipated. • MP 5.9 – MP 6.2, Wilton, Curve C13. Replace OH 6.25 (Wolfpit Rd.). • MP 6.4 – MP 6.6, Wilton, Curve C14. Replace UG 6.64 (Norwalk River). • MP 7.0 – MP 7.7, Wilton, Curves C15 – C17. Existing Wilton station will have

to be relocated to the new alignment. Portions of existing U.S. 7 that are located on or adjacent to the new alignment may have to be relocated. New bridges will be required on the new alignment to replace OH 7.33 (SR 33), AG 7.32 (Station Crossing) and OH 7.87 (U.S. 7).

• MP 9.5 – MP 9.9, Wilton, Curve C18. Portions of existing U.S. 7 that are located on or adjacent to the new alignment may have to be relocated. A new bridge will be required on the new alignment to replace UG 9.42 (Norwalk River). Existing grade crossings AG 9.42 (Seeley Rd.) and AG 9.96 (Honey Hill Rd.) will be modified. The new alignment will be very close to the Norwalk River, possibly requiring an additional two bridges; relocation of the river channel may be a consideration.

• MP 11.6 – MP 12.4, Wilton, Redding, Curves C19 and C20. The proposed alignment would pass through developed portions of Georgetown. A new bridge will be required on the new alignment to replace OH 11.79 (SR 107). Existing grade crossing AG 12.01 (S. Main St.) would be modified. No changes are anticipated at UG 12.17 (Factory Pond).

• MP 13.0 – MP 15.8, Ridgefield, Redding, Curves C21 – C24. Major excavation required. Portions of existing U.S. 7 that are located on or adjacent to the new alignment may have to be relocated. New stream crossings will be required at various locations. (Note: This 2.8 mile stretch consists of 2.2 miles of new construction; 0.6 mile will utilize the existing alignment but may have to be re-profiled to match the new alignment).

• MP 16.6 – MP 16.9, Redding, Curve C-25. Major excavation required. Portions of the existing Sympaug Turnpike that are located on or adjacent to the new alignment may have to be relocated.


22

• MP 17.3 – MP 19.2, Redding, Bethel, Curves C26 – C28. Major embankment construction required at Mountain Brook. Major excavation required at Bogus Mountain. (Note: This 1.9 mile stretch consists of 1.5 miles of new construction; 0.4 mile will utilize the existing alignment but may have to be re-profiled to match the new alignment).

• MP 20.4 – MP 20.8, Bethel, Curve C29. The proposed alignment would pass through developed portions of Bethel. New bridges will be required on the new alignment to replace AG 20.44 (Taylor Ave.), AG 20.52 (South St.) and AG 20.62 (Greenwood Ave.).

• MP 22.5 – MP 23.3, Danbury, Curve C30. The proposed alignment would pass through developed portions of Danbury. New bridges will be required on the new alignment to replace AG 22.57 (Triangle St.), AG 22.83 (Taylor St.), UG 22.94 (Still River box culvert) and AG 22.99 (East Liberty St.).

Construction staging has not been evaluated at this conceptual level, however, service suspensions would be anticipated, particularly on weekends to facilitate blasting (rock excavation), cut and throws (connections between existing track and new track), bridge construction and modifications to the MNR signal system. 1.1.5.3 Cost Estimate The cost estimates prepared for the 10-minute reduction in running time are intended as order of magnitude estimate only. The estimate is intended only for rough budgeting and should not be considered as a detailed engineering estimate. The following assumptions were used in developing the estimate:

• The estimate was prepared using estimated quantities multiplied by unit costs. • Unit costs include labor, labor additives, material and equipment. • All civil and structural construction work, including new track construction, will

be contracted out. MNR force account will be used for work on existing track and signals. Signal work on new track construction would be contracted out, with MNR overseeing final testing and cutover.

• Unit costs have been adjusted to reflect Fourth Quarter 2003 figures. • Right-of-way would be acquired for the new alignment. An assumed average

right-of-way width of 100 ft. was used for the new alignment. This right-of-way width would also accommodate a future second main track. Property would be acquired for the new Wilton station site and parking lot.

• Earthwork volumes were estimated using typical end sections multiplied by length of construction. Estimated grading was developed from analysis of United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic maps.

• The top 10 feet of excavation assumes that typical earth removal and ripping operations will suffice. Blasting will be required to remove material deeper that 10 ft. below existing ground line.

• Excavated material will be hauled to a spoil site 20 miles from the project site. • Embankment will be constructed with 2H:1V side slopes using borrow material. • Cut sections will be constructed in stable rock with 1.5H:1V side slopes.


23

• It is not possible to evaluate utility modifications. A lump sum figure has been set aside for utility relocation and modification.

• The subgrade for new track will be constructed to support one track and an adjacent service road. The service road will facilitate track inspection, repair and maintenance and would be used as the roadbed for a future second track.

• A 6-inch layer of sub-ballast will be provided. • New track will be constructed with concrete crossties and continuous welded rail

(136 pound / yard). 8-inches of compacted ballast will be provided under the crossties.

• Existing track that will be retained in the final alignment will not be upgraded with concrete crossties or new continuous welded rail. Existing track will be lined and surfaced and existing curves will be superelevated for 60 mph operations.

• New undergrade railroad bridges are assumed to be of deck girder, ballasted deck construction.

• Existing public highways will be grade-separated where they intersect the new track alignment. Grade crossings on existing track that will be retained as part of the Blue Alignment will not be grade-separated. The crossing starts for these at-grade highway crossings will be adjusted for the higher speed operations.

• New overhead highway bridges are assumed to be of deck girder construction, each with two traffic lanes and two full width shoulders. Bridges would be constructed long enough to span a future second main track.

• The new overhead and undergrade highway bridges would be built on new roadway approach alignments adjacent to the existing roadway alignment to facilitate bridge construction and to maintain roadway traffic as the new bridge is constructed.

• Portions of U.S. 7, Sympaug Turnpike and short stretches of local roadways would be constructed on new alignments to facilitate railroad construction.

• .A new signal system will be installed on the long section of new alignment. The new signal system will be designed for 60 mph operations (cab signals, no wayside signals except at interlockings). Modifications to the existing signal system will be required where the existing alignment is retained.

• Fiber optic communication cable would be installed along new track construction for the new signal system and MNR communications

The following items cannot be reasonably quantified at this conceptual design level and are included in the cost estimate contingency:

• Costs for demolition of buildings and other facilities located on acquired right-of-way.

• Site remediation and environmental mitigation associated with construction.


24

The estimated cost:

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 25,500,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 6,530,000 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $319,790,525 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 11,619,000 TRACK $ 13,150,828 SIGNALS $ 5,941,225 COMMUNICATIONS $ 2,550,000 SUB-TOTAL $385,081,577 10% DESIGN $ 38,508,158 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 57,762,237 40% CONTINGENCY $154,032,631 GRAND TOTAL $635,384,603 ROUNDED $635M

1.1.5.4 Summary The 10-minute reduction in running time between South Norwalk and Danbury will require three major activities: 1) Construct approximately 10.2 miles of single track on new alignment to support 60 mph operations; 2) Increase superelevation and underbalance and lengthen spirals on existing curves to permit an increase in maximum allowable speeds to 60 mph; and 3) Construct a new Wilton station on the new alignment. The estimated cost associated with the railroad construction is $635M. 1.1.6 Improvements to Reduce Running Time by 15 Minutes 1.1.6.1 Overview The analysis of reducing running times by approximately 15 minutes is very similar to the previously discussed analysis to reduce running time by 10 minutes; major new construction would be required. The existing alignment has too many closely spaced curves that do not allow for changes in superelevation or realignment required for higher speeds. A conceptual alignment was developed for the study that would provide a 13-minute reduction in the 45-minute base running time between South Norwalk and Danbury. The drawings that accompany this report depict a “Green Alignment” which would enable a 32-minute running time. The same assumptions that were used to develop the Blue Alignment were used to develop the Green Alignment, with the following exceptions pertaining to the Green Alignment:


25

• The maximum allowable speed would be 60 mph between South Norwalk and

Branchville. The maximum allowable speed between Branchville and Danbury would be 70 mph, except for a 60 mph restriction on curves. Trains would be restricted to a maximum 10 mph running speed at the South Norwalk and Danbury terminals.

• New construction would be based on the MNR preferred standard of 1.5-inch underbalance on curves. All proposed new curves are based on a maximum degree of curvature of 2˚ 10’. Proposed superelevation is 4 inches and proposed spiral length is 248 feet.

As detailed later in this report it is proposed to: 1) construct almost 14 route miles of single-track on new alignment; and, 2) superelevate the curves on the existing track that will be retained in the final alignment to permit consistent running speeds of 60 mph. This in-turn will reduce running times between South Norwalk and Danbury by 13 minutes. Figure SND–10, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 15-Minute Reduction, indicates by milepost those locations where it is proposed to increase maximum allowable speeds by constructing track on a new alignment and increasing superelevation and underbalance on existing track. Figure SND-11, Increased Speed vs. Time for 15-Minute Reduction, indicates the proposed running time based on the new construction and the superelevation and underbalance changes to existing track. The estimated running time is 31.29 minutes (rounded to 32 minutes); the estimated existing running time, from Figure SD-5, is 45 minutes. Therefore, by constructing 14 route-miles of track on new alignment and modifying superelevation and underbalance on the curves of the existing 9 route-miles that would be retained, the running time between South Norwalk ands Danbury is reduced by 13 minutes. 1.1.6.2 Construction Locations An estimated 13.7 miles of new single-track alignment would be constructed. Right-of-way will have to be acquired for most of the new alignment. Numerous industrial, commercial and residential properties would have to be acquired and on-site buildings and facilities would have to be removed. Significant rock excavation will be required, particularly between Branchville and Bethel. Referring to the “Green Alignment” depicted on the enclosed drawings, the following locations would require construction of new alignments (referenced by current milepost, municipality and proposed new curve designation):

• MP 0.0 – MP 0.6, Norwalk, Curves C1 and C2. New bridges would be required at UG 0.11 (Marshall St.) and UG 0.19 (Anne St.). Possible conflict with bridge piers at OH 0.54 (Interstate 95).

• MP 0.7 – MP 1.7, Norwalk, Curve C3. Requires a new bridge over the Norwalk River (to replace UG 1.54). The Wall Street Tunnel would be abandoned since it is not be on the new alignment. New bridges would be required on the new alignment to replace AG 1.33 (Commerce Street), OH 1.47 (Wall St.), OH 1.53 (Belton Place), UG 1.54 (Norwalk River) and AG 1.65 (Cross St.).


26

• MP 2.1 – MP 2.5, Norwalk, Curve C4. Minor modification to existing alignment, no new track construction anticipated.

• MP 2.8 – MP 3.3, Norwalk, Curves C5 and C6. Requires a new bridge over the Norwalk River (to replace UG 3.20). Possible conflict with bridge piers at OH 3.41 (Merritt Parkway).

• MP 3.7, Norwalk. New high-level platform at Merritt 7. • MP 3.7 – MP 4.3, Norwalk, Curves C7 and C8. Excavation required. • MP 4.7 – MP 4.9, Wilton, Curve C9. Excavation required. Grade-separate AG

4.93 (Kent Rd.). • MP 5.6 – MP 5.8, Wilton, Curve C10. Minor modification to existing alignment,

no new track construction anticipated. • MP 5.9 – MP 6.2, Wilton, Curve C11. Replace OH 6.25 (Wolfpit Rd.). • MP 6.4 – MP 6.6, Wilton, Curve C12. Replace UG 6.64 (Norwalk River). • MP 7.0 – MP 7.7, Wilton, Curves C13 – C15. Existing Wilton station would have

to be relocated to the new alignment. Portions of existing U.S. 7 that are located on or adjacent to the new alignment may have to be relocated. New bridges will be required on the new alignment to replace OH 7.33 (SR 33), AG 7.32 (Station Crossing) and OH 7.87 (U.S. 7).

• MP 9.4 – MP 10.1, Wilton, Curve C16. Portions of existing U.S. 7 that are located on or adjacent to the new alignment may have to be relocated. New bridges will be required on the new alignment to replace UG 9.42 (Norwalk River), AG 9.42 (Seeley Rd.) and AG 9.96 (Honey Hill Rd.). The new alignment will cross the Norwalk River at an estimated five locations; relocation of the river channel may be a consideration.

• MP 11.5 – MP 12.4, Wilton, Redding, Curves C17 and C18. The proposed alignment would pass through developed portions of Georgetown. New bridges will be required on the new alignment to replace UG 11.55 (Norwalk River), OH 11.79 (SR 107), AG 12.01 (S. Main St.) and UG 12.17 (Factory Pond).

• MP 13.0 – MP 15.8, Ridgefield, Redding, Curve C19. Major excavation required. Portions of existing U.S. 7 that are located on or adjacent to the new alignment may have to be relocated. The new alignment will cross the Norwalk River at an estimated three locations and cross U.S. 7 at an estimated three locations. The new alignment will cross smaller streams at various locations.

• MP 16.5 – MP 16.9, Redding, Curve C-20. Major excavation required. Portions of the existing Sympaug Turnpike that are located on or adjacent to the new alignment will have to be relocated.

• MP 17.3 – MP 18.7, Redding, Bethel, Curve C21. Major embankment construction required at Mountain Brook. Major excavation required at Bogus Mountain.

• MP 19.0 – MP 20.8, Bethel, Curve C22. Approaching Bethel from the south, the new alignment would cross Sympaug Brook and State Route 53. The new alignment would pass through, or very close to, a portion of St. Mary’s Cemetery. The proposed alignment would pass through developed portions of Bethel. Within the developed sections of Bethel, new bridges will be required on the new alignment to replace AG 20.44 (Taylor Ave.), AG 20.52 (South St.) and AG 20.62 (Greenwood Ave.).


27

• MP 22.5 – MP 23.3, Danbury, Curve C23. The proposed alignment would pass through developed portions of Danbury. New bridges will be required on the new alignment to replace AG 22.57 (Triangle St.), AG 22.83 (Taylor St.), UG 22.94 (Still River box culvert) and AG 22.99 (East Liberty St.).

Construction staging has not been evaluated at this conceptual level, however, service suspensions would be anticipated, particularly on weekends to facilitate blasting (rock excavation), cut and throws (between existing track and new track), bridge construction and modifications to the MNR signal system. 1.1.6.3 Cost Estimate The assumptions used to develop the cost estimate for the 10-minute reduction in running time were also used to develop the cost estimate for the 15-minute reduction in running time (refer to Section 1.1.5.3). The estimated cost:

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 34,000,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 6,200,000 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $549,406,634 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 12,886,000 TRACK $ 16,374,924 SIGNALS $ 6,179,211 COMMUNICATIONS $ 3,425,000 SUB-TOTAL $628,471,769 10% DESIGN $ 62,847,177 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 94,270,765 40% CONTINGENCY $251,388,707 GRAND TOTAL $1,036,978,418 ROUNDED $1.0B

1.1.6.4 Summary The approximate 15-minute reduction in running time between South Norwalk and Danbury would require three major activities: 1) Construct approximately 13.7 miles of single track on new alignment to support 60 – 70 mph operations; 2) Increase superelevation and underbalance and lengthen spirals on existing curves to permit an increase in maximum allowable speeds to 60 mph; and, 3) Construct a new Wilton station on the new alignment. The estimated cost associated with the railroad construction is $1.0B.


28

1.2 DANBURY – NEW MILFORD 1.2.1 Overview of Existing Geometry 1.2.1.1 Existing Route The Danbury – New Milford railroad segment, shown in Figure DNM-1, Location Map, connects the City of Danbury and the Town of New Milford. The route is a single-track main line, approximately 14.3 route-miles in length. The line is not equipped with an automatic block signal system. The Danbury – New Milford segment consists of three distinct sections:

• For this study, the Danbury to New Milford segment starts at MP 23.3 of the Danbury Branch, location of the MNR Danbury station. From MP 23.6 to MP 24.2 the Danbury Branch parallels the east – west Maybrook Line. The Danbury Branch ends at MP 24.2, White Street. The entire length of the Danbury Branch, including the portion from MP 23.3 to MP 24.2 is owned by the State of Connecticut.

• For this study, it is assumed that Danbury – New Milford trains will cross over from the Danbury Branch to the Maybrook Line at MP 23.9. MP 23.9 on the Danbury Branch equates to MP 77.4 of the Maybrook Line. From MP 77.4 to MP 80.0 the Maybrook Line is owned and operated by the Housatonic Railroad Company (HRRC). This length of track consists of a main track and a parallel siding track. HRRC provides freight service to various on-line customers. The Providence & Worcester Railroad also has trackage rights over this section. Commuter rail service is not operated this line.

• The north – south Berkshire Line diverges from the Maybrook Line at MP 80.0. This location is designated as Berkshire Junction. Starting at MP 0.0 (Berkshire Junction), the Berkshire Line runs northward to New Milford (MP 11.1) and continues into Massachusetts. The Berkshire Line is owned and operated by HRRC. Freight service is provided to various on-line customers. Commuter rail service is not operated over this line.

Today’s Housatonic Railroad was originally constructed in the 1830’s. Various line changes were made afterwards to reduce curvature. The line generally parallels the Still River and Housatonic River north of Berkshire Junction. Overall, curvature and grade north of Danbury is less stringent than the line south of Danbury. 1.2.1.2 Profile and Grade Referring to Figure DNM-2, HRRC Track Charts, the existing railroad profile (vertical alignment) between Danbury and New Milford can be categorized into four major segments:

• The line descends at an estimated average grade of 0.6 % between the MNR Danbury Station (MP 23.3), MP 23.9 / MP 77.4 and the Still River Bridge (MP


29

79.6), just west of Berkshire Junction. The longest sustained grade, as well as the maximum grade on this segment is 0.80%, descending between MP 77.7 and MP 79.6.

• The line generally consists of a rolling profile between the Still River Bridge (MP 79.6), Berkshire Junction (MP 80.0 / MP 0.0) and MP 2.7. The estimated average grade on this segment is 0.4% ascending. The longest sustained grade, as well as the maximum grade is 0.6% ascending between MP 1.7 and MP 2.7.

• The line descends at an estimated average grade of 0.4 % between MP 2.7 and the Housatonic River Bridge (MP 10.2). The maximum grade is 0.6% between MP 8.6 and MP 9.1. The longest sustained grade is 0.5% between MP 3.9 and MP 6.4.

• The line ascends at an estimated average grade of 0.3% between the Housatonic River Bridge (MP 10.2) and the New Milford station (MP 11.1). The longest sustained grade on this segment is 0.2% between the Housatonic River Bridge (MP 10.2) and MP 10.8. The estimated maximum grade on this segment is 0.6% between MP 10.8 and the New Milford station (MP 11.1).

Due to the short consists that are anticipated to be operated on the line (2 – 7 cars), the profile and grades of the Danbury – New Milford segment are not anticipated to pose any operating problems for commuter trains 1.2.1.3 Curvature, Superelevation, Underbalance Referring to Figure DNM-2, HRRC Track Charts, the Danbury - New Milford horizontal alignment consists of 28 curves. Table DNM-1 provides geometry data for each curve that is shown on the track charts. Degree of curvature often dictates the maximum allowable speed over a stretch of track, however, maximum allowable speed on the Danbury – New Milford segment is actually governed by condition of the track structure. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Track Safety Standards define the minimum requirements to which railroad track must be maintained for a given range of speeds. The FRA Track Safety Standards set minimum requirements and allowable tolerances for the following: roadbed (drainage and vegetation), track geometry (gage, alinement, surface and superelevation) and track structure (ballast, crossties, rail, rail joints, tie plates, fasteners and turnouts). The HRRC generally maintains this segment of track in accordance with the requirements of FRA Class 2 Track Safety Standards. The maximum allowable operating speed on track that is maintained to Class 2 standards is 25 mph for freight trains and 30 mph for passenger trains. Track that is maintained to FRA Class 3 Track Safety Standards will permit speeds of up to 40 mph for freight trains and 60 mph for passenger trains. It should be recognized that the degree of curvature may govern track speed on curves rather than the FRA maintenance standards. As an example, a stretch of track could be maintained to FRA Class 3 standards, however, fully superelevated curves with a degree of curvature of 3º 00' would restrict the maximum speed to 50 mph rather than the 60 mph maximum speed permitted by FRA.


30

The geometry of most of the existing curves on the Danbury – New Milford segment will support operating speeds greater than 30 mph if the following is carried out: 1) longer spirals are provided; 2) additional superelevation is provided; and 3) the track is upgraded to accommodate the increase in operating speeds. The curve data depicted in Table DNM-1 was used in developing existing and proposed run times for this study. An analysis of the curve data noted the following:

• An estimated 6.5 miles of the 14.3-mile route between Danbury and New Milford is constructed on curves; or, approximately 45% of the total route.

• The maximum degree of curvature between Danbury and New Milford is the 17˚ Loop Track on the MNR Danbury Line just north of the existing MNR Danbury station. This curve is restricted to 10 mph.

• The greatest degree of curvature on the Maybrook Line is a compound curve of 5˚00’ and 4˚00’ located in Danbury, between Wildman Street and White Street. The current maximum allowable speed over this curve is 25 mph.

• The greatest degree of curvature on the Berkshire Line is a compound curve of 2˚00’ - 4˚00’ - 2˚00’ at MP 1.2, north of Berkshire Junction. A compound curve of similar curvature is located at MP 10.4, just north of the Housatonic River Bridge. The current maximum allowable speed over both curves is 30 mph.

• Six of the 28 curves between Danbury and New Milford are 3˚00’ or greater. In general, the maximum allowable speed on a 3˚ 00’ curve is 50 mph, assuming proper superelevation and that the track is in compliance with FRA Class 3 track safety standards. The maximum allowable speed generally decreases as the degree of curvature increases.

For this study, we have assumed that MNR criteria for establishing the maximum allowable speed on curves would be used on the Danbury – New Milford segment. MNR requirements are detailed in their document, “MW 4, Manual for Construction, Maintenance and Inspection of Track.” MNR’s preferred maximum superelevation is 4 inches at 1.5 inches underbalance. Additional superelevation and/or underbalance may be provided with approval of the HRRC and MNR Chief Engineer Maintenance of Way. 1.2.1.4 Horizontal and Vertical Clearances Modifications to existing track or construction of new track will have to comply with the legal horizontal and vertical clearance requirements previously listed in Section 1.1.1.4 of this report. 1.2.1.5 Overhead and Undergrade Bridges The Danbury - New Milford segment utilizes nine undergrade bridges to cross over waterways and highways. Eight overhead bridges convey roadways over the railroad. The HRRC track charts generally do not indicate the type of construction of the undergrade bridges. For this study, most undergrade bridges are assumed to be of deck girder, open deck construction. The longest and most notable structure on the Danbury -


31

New Milford segment is the through truss bridge over the Housatonic River. The bridges located on the Danbury – New Milford segment are listed in Table DNM-2. 1.2.1.6 Railroad Highway Grade Crossings The Danbury – New Milford segment is crossed at grade by six public highways and two private crossings. The HRRC track charts indicate that two local grade crossings in New Milford, South Ave. and Mill St., are provided with flashing light warning devises; the other four public grade crossings on the Danbury – New Milford segment are provided with flashing lights and gates. Private crossings are provided with signs. The railroad – highway grade crossings are listed in Table DNM-3. 1.2.2 Overview of Existing Operations 1.2.2.1 Freight Service The Housatonic Railroad Company currently provides freight service over the Danbury – New Milford segment. In addition, the Providence & Worcester Railroad has trackage rights over the Maybrook Line and MNR Danbury Branch. Commuter rail service is not provided north of the MNR Danbury station. HRRC currently serves two customers on the Maybrook Line in Danbury and three customers on the Berkshire Line south of New Milford. HRRC service to these customers is provided by daytime weekday local NX-11, which works south from New Milford towards Danbury. P&W weekday local CT-2 utilizes trackage rights over HRRC and MNR to serve one customer on the Maybrook Line in Danbury (not served by HRRC) and one customer on the MNR Danbury Branch in Bethel. This train operates on weekdays, shortly after midnight. Generally, the P&W does not operate south of Bethel; however, during Maybrook Line track outages the P&W will run between South Norwalk and Danbury. 1.2.2.2 Operations The MNR Danbury Branch between the MNR Danbury station and the connection to the Maybrook Line is operated under manual block rules. An MNR block station (DAN) and a passing siding at the MNR Danbury station facilitates unscheduled meets and the staging of trains. The turnouts leading to the passing siding are hand-operated by the train crews. The crossovers connecting the MNR Danbury Branch to the HRRC Maybrook Line are also hand-operated. The Maybrook Line between Danbury and Berkshire Junction is located within yard limits and operates under yard rules. This segment consist of two parallel tracks, the two tracks converge to a single track just west of Berkshire Junction. A left-hand crossover


32

designated as WILD is located just east of Wildman Street. All turnouts are hand-operated by the train crews. The Berkshire Line is operated under manual block rules between Berkshire Junction and MP 8.5. Block limits are located at BERKSHIRE JUNCTION (MP 0.0), STEARNS (MP 1.0) and BROOKFIELD (MP 4.4). The Berkshire Line between MP 8.5 and New Milford is located within yard limits and operated under yard rules. Passing sidings are located at Stearns, Kimberly Clark (just south of the Housatonic River Bridge) and New Milford station. These sidings are generally used to facilitate switching of industries rather than accommodate meets. All turnouts are hand-operated by the train crews. 1.2.2.3 Estimated Commuter Rail Running Times Current, maximum allowable speeds on the Danbury - New Milford segment are:

• MNR Danbury Branch, between MP 23.3 (MNR Danbury station) and MP 23.9 (connection to HRRC Maybrook Line): 10 mph.

• HRRC Maybrook Line, between MP 77.4 (connection with MNR) and MP 77.5 (Wildman Street): 10 mph.

• HRRC Maybrook Line, between MP 77.5 and MP 80.0 (Berkshire Junction): 25 mph.

• HRRC Berkshire Line, between MP 0.0 and MP 10.6 (New Milford): 30 mph. • HRRC Berkshire Line, between MP 10.6 and MP 11.1 (New Milford): 10 mph

Figure DNM-3, Existing Maximum Allowable Speed with Speed Restrictions, depicts maximum allowable speed versus milepost location. The estimated runtime includes a total of 5 minutes for train crews to operate hand throw switches: 2.5 minutes at the MNR / HRRC connection in Danbury and 2.5 minutes at the Maybrook Line / Berkshire Line connection at Berkshire Junction. This study assumes that the following station stops will be made, all on the HRRC Berkshire Line: Danbury North (MP 0.6), Brookfield (MP 4.4) and New Milford (MP 11.1). This study assumes that MNR locomotives and rolling stock would be used between Danbury and New Milford. Using average locomotive acceleration and braking data provided by MNR (refer to Section 1.1.2.7), and assuming an average station dwell time of 60 seconds per station, the estimated run time between Danbury and New Milford, at current track speeds, is calculated at 41.50 minutes (rounded to 42 minutes). Figure DNM-4, Existing Speed vs. Time, depicts running time versus maximum allowable speed. The estimated 42 minutes is used in this report as the base running time for analyzing proposed running time reductions.


33

It should be recognized that the 42-minute base running time represents operations during ideal conditions; contingency for unforeseen situations, such as weather and larger than normal passenger loads is not included in the base running time. 1.2.3 Improvements to Reduce Running Times by 5 Minutes The proposed improvements that are identified in this report for reducing current running times by approximately 5, 10 and 15 minutes on the Danbury – New Milford were developed by evaluating existing grades, curvature, superelevation, clearances and grade crossings and determining how these elements may constrain a reduction in running time. Referring to Figure DNM-3, Existing Maximum Allowable Speed with Speed Restrictions, and Figure DNM-4, Existing Speed vs. Time, the estimated base running time between the MNR Danbury Station and New Milford is 42 minutes. The improvements suggested in this report for reducing running times from today’s base running time of 42 minutes are generally based on increasing maximum allowable speeds. Today’s maximum allowable speeds on the existing Danbury – New Milford segment are generally governed by track condition. The existing track would have to be upgraded to allow faster running speeds. Proposed trackwork also includes increasing superelevation on certain curves and lengthening those curve’s entrance and exit spirals to allow faster running speeds. The analysis indicates that new track construction and right-of-way acquisition would not be required to provide the increase in speeds. Other methods may be available for reducing running times, such as changing service patterns, electrifying the existing line, and introducing new technologies such as tilt trains. Evaluating alternative operating patterns to reduce running times, such as introducing skip stop service, is beyond the scope of this report. Issues and costs associated with introducing electrification and new technologies to the Danbury – New Milford segment will be addressed in separate reports. 1.2.3.1 Upgrade Track The HRRC Maybrook Line and Berkshire Line would both be upgraded to permit faster running. MNR and HRRC track charts provide the following rail data. The HRRC track charts that were reviewed did not indicate rail data for the Berkshire Line, for this section information from 1985 Conrail track charts was used. The following rail is installed:

• MNR Danbury Line (between the MNR Danbury station and connection to Maybrook Line): Jointed rail, 107 pounds per yard

• Maybrook Line: Jointed rail, 130 pounds per yard. • Berkshire Line: Jointed rail, 107 pounds per yard.


34

A detailed inspection has not been made of the HRRC properties to assess the current condition of the roadbed and track structure. For this study, we have assumed the following track work will be required:

• An assumed three miles of track will be undercut to remove fouled ballast. New ballast will be unloaded following undercutting to restore the track to the original top of rail elevation.

• All trackside ditches will be cleared and graded. We have assumed four culverts per mile. All under-track culverts will be cleaned. We have assumed that 25% of the culverts will be repaired or replaced.

• Every third crosstie will be replaced with a new crosstie. Two new cross ties will be provided at each rail joint.

• All switch timbers will be replaced. • The track will be raised on 6 inches of new ballast (6 inches below bottom of

crosstie). • The track will be lined, surfaced and regulated. • All bolted rail joints use four bolt-assemblies per rail joint: 25% of all assemblies

are assumed missing/damaged and will be replaced. • All in-place rail and joint bars will be tested for internal defects. It is assumed

that no consistent defect patterns would be noted that would indicate the need for a large-scale replacement of rail and joint bars.

• For this study the outer rails of curves 3˚00’, or greater, are assumed to be curve worn and will be replaced. All other in-place rail is assumed fit for passenger rail service.

• New rail anchors will be installed throughout. • A contingency will be included to account for other possible repair and

replacements (damaged tie plates, worn switch points, rail welding for end battered rails, etc.).

The completed work will allow for the proposed increase in speed. Note: Rather than rehabilitate the existing track, the existing track could also be removed and replaced with new track construction, using concrete crossties and continuous welded rail. However, the cost for new construction would be at least twice the cost of rehabilitation. The cost for new track construction is discussed later in this report. 1.2.3.2 Housatonic River Bridge This estimate assumes that the large through truss bridge over the Housatonic River will have to be upgraded to accommodate an increase in running speeds. Structural improvements, such as strengthening various truss members, may be required due to the increased running speeds (to handle greater stresses from braking action or flat wheels). The estimate assumes that the bridge is an open deck structure and that the bridge timbers are in satisfactory condition. A detailed inspection and structural analysis would be required to confirm these assumptions.


35

1.2.3.3 Increase Superelevation and Underbalance on Specific Curves An analysis of HRRC track chart data indicates that the maximum allowable speeds can be raised by 10 – 20 mph on certain curves by increasing superelevation and underbalance. This proposed reduction in running time by 5 minutes would require modification to the existing track but would not require new track construction or right of way acquisition. Widening of existing cuts and embankments is not anticipated, The proposed increase in speed on certain curves is based on three assumptions:

1) The line is upgraded to permit 40 mph operations. Existing spirals would be lengthened and additional superelevation provided on curves to permit 40 mph operations. The line would have to be maintained to FRA Class 3 standards after upgrading. As previously mentioned, with acceptable curvature, track maintained to FRA Class 2 Track Safety Standards allows passenger trains to operate up to 30 mph. Track maintained to Class 3 standards allows passenger trains to operate at a maximum speed ranging from 30 mph to 60 mph.

2) HRRC and MNR will both approve the increase in superelevation and unbalance.

The proposed superelevation, underbalance and length of spirals will be set for the higher speed, commuter rail operation. HRRC freight trains may operate at slower speeds, which theoretically require less superelevation and underbalance. Proposed changes in superelevation will need to be coordinated with HRRC to verify that potential train handling concerns are identified and addressed.

For the proposed 5-minute reduction in running time, the proposed superelevation is not expected to exceed 2 inches. The proposed underbalance is not expected to exceed 1.5 inches (except for one location where the proposed underbalance is 2.4 in.).

3) The increase in superelevation will require the lengthening of spirals. At

locations where consecutive left-hand and right-hand curves (“reverse curves”) are separated by a short stretch of tangent it is assumed that the lengthened spirals will not result in a tangent length less than 100 ft.

The proposed increase in superelevation requires raising the outer rail on curves and lengthening the entrance and exit spirals on curves. The proposed increase in superelevation and underbalance would permit a maximum allowable speed of 40 mph over 12.6 miles of the 14.3 miles between Danbury and New Milford. The proposed increase in speed at various locations would require modifications to the affected grade crossings (due to increasing superelevation through the crossing), grade crossing warning systems (lengthen crossing starts due to increased speeds) and open deck bridges (install new bridge timbers due to increasing superelevation).


36

Table DNM – 4, Curve Data Chart: Proposed 40 MPH Operations, lists the curves that have been proposed for an increase in superelevation and underbalance. Figure DNM–5, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 5-Minute Reduction, indicates by milepost those locations where it is proposed to increase maximum allowable speeds by increasing superelevation and underbalance. Figure DNM-6, Increased Speed vs. Time for 5-Minute Reduction, indicates the proposed running time based on the superelevation and underbalance changes. The estimated running time is 34.3 minutes (rounded to 35 minutes); the estimated existing running time, from Figure DNM-4, is 42 minutes. The superelevation and underbalance changes would reduce running time by 7 minutes. 1.2.3.4 Cost Estimate The estimated costs assume that the work is contracted out rather than carried out by HRRC force account. Major activities:

• Property would be acquired for the new station sites and parking lots at Danbury North and Brookfield. It is assumed that the current New Milford station and nearby parking lots would be used rather than constructing a new facility.

• Raise outer rail, replace down crossties, surface track: 3.9 track-miles, various locations (refer to Table DNM-4).

• Renew all existing grade crossings, public and private, including the track through the crossing.

• Re-timber two open deck bridges to increase superelevation: UG 78.74 (Beaver Brook Rd.) and UG 8.95 (Still River).

• Miscellaneous signal cable adjustments to accommodate grade crossing renewals. • Construct new high level station platforms at Danbury North, Brookfield and New

Milford. HRRC would provide flag protection for the contractor installing the new station platforms.

• Upgrade track for 40 mph operations. The proposed increase in superelevation and lengthening of spirals would be carried out with the track upgrade.

• Upgrade Housatonic River bridge: • Adjust crossing starts at the six public grade crossings.

Estimated costs:

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 1,600,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 0 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $ 4,410,000 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 775,000 TRACK $ 9,592,798 SIGNALS $ 201,728 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $ 16,579,525


37

10% DESIGN $ 1,657,953 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 2,486,929 40% CONTINGENCY $ 6,631,810 GRAND TOTAL $27,356,217 ROUNDED $27M

1.2.3.5 Summary The proposed 5-minute reduction in running time between Danbury and New Milford would require two major actions: 1) Upgrade the existing track between Danbury and New Milford to permit higher running speeds; and, 2) Increase superelevation and underbalance and lengthen spirals on certain curves to permit an increase in maximum allowable speeds over those curves. This would permit a reduction in running time of 7 minutes, 2 minutes better that the proposed initial reduction of 5 minutes. The estimated cost associated with the railroad construction is $27M. 1.2.4 Improvements to Reduce Running Times by 10 Minutes 1.2.4.1 Implement Previously Identified Improvements to Reduce Running Time The items proposed to reduce running times by 5 minutes would also be implemented to reduce running times by 10 minutes. The track would be upgraded to permit 50 mph running speeds. Existing spirals would be lengthened and additional superelevation provided on curves to permit 50 mph operations. The line would have to be maintained to FRA Class 3 Track Safety Standards after upgrading. The same assumptions listed in Section 1.2.3.1 for upgrading track would also be carried out for the 10-minute reduction in running time. The assumptions listed in Section 1.2.3.2 regarding the Housatonic River Bridge are assumed for the 10-minute reduction in running time. In general, the scope of rehabilitation work and the cost to upgrade the track for 50 mph operations (10 minute reduction in running time) would be the same as the scope and cost to upgrade the track for 40 mph operations (5 minute reduction in running time). This is because the track in either scenario would have to be upgraded and subsequently maintained to FRA Class 3 Track Safety Standards. 1.2.4.2 Additional Superelevation The major difference between the proposed methods of reducing running times by 5 minutes and 10 minutes is that additional superelevation would be provided on most curves to provide the 10-minute reduction in running time. Underbalance would also increase and the length of entrance and exit spirals on curves would increase where the additional superelevation is provided.


38

This proposed reduction in running time by 10 minutes would require modification to the existing track but would not require new track construction or right of way acquisition. Widening of existing cuts and embankments is not anticipated. The proposed increase in superelevation and underbalance would permit a maximum allowable speed of 50 mph over 11.0 miles of the 14.3 miles between Danbury and New Milford. Table DNM – 5, Curve Data Chart: Proposed 50 MPH Operations, lists the curves that have been proposed for an increase in superelevation and underbalance. Figure DNM–7, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 10-Minute Reduction, indicates by milepost those locations where it is proposed to increase maximum allowable speeds by increasing superelevation and underbalance. Figure DNM-8, Increased Speed vs. Time for 10-Minute Reduction, indicates the proposed running time based on the superelevation and underbalance changes. The estimated running time is 31.3 minutes (rounded to 32 minutes); the estimated existing running time, from Figure DNM-4, is 42 minutes. The superelevation and underbalance changes would reduce running time by 10 minutes. The proposed increase in superelevation and underbalance is required to increase the maximum allowable speeds for commuter trains. HRRC freight trains generally operate at lower speeds. Therefore proposed changes in Superelevation would need to be coordinated with HRRC to verify that potential train handling concerns are identified and addressed. 1.2.4.3 Cost Estimate The cost estimates for the 10-minute reduction in running time would be very similar to the cost estimate for the 5-minute reduction in running time. The primary difference is the cost of the additional ballast, lining and surfacing required for the 10-minute reduction in running time. The estimated costs assume that the work is contracted out rather than carried out by HRRC force account. Major activities:




• Re-timber three open deck bridges to increase superelevation: UG 78.74 (Beaver Brook Rd.), UG 2.44 (Center Road) and UG 8.95 (Still River).




39

• Upgrade track for 50 mph operations. The proposed increase in superelevation and lengthening of spirals would be carried out with the track upgrade.

• Upgrade Housatonic River Bridge. • Adjust crossing starts at the six public grade crossings.

Estimated costs:

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 1,600,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 0 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $ 4,410,000 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 850,000 TRACK $ 9,764,398 SIGNALS $ 205,241 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $16,829,639 10% DESIGN $ 1,682,964 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 2,524,446 40% CONTINGENCY $ 6,731,856

GRAND TOTAL $27,768,904 ROUNDED $28M

1.2.4.4 Summary The 10-minute reduction in running time between Danbury and New Milford would require two major actions: 1) Upgrade the existing track between Danbury and New Milford to permit 50 mph operations; and, 2) Increase superelevation and underbalance and lengthen spirals on certain curves to permit an increase in maximum allowable speeds over those curves. The estimated cost associated with the railroad construction is $28M. 1.2.5 Improvements to Reduce Running Time by 15 Minutes 1.2.5.1 Implement Previously Identified Improvements to Reduce Running Time The items proposed to reduce running times by 5 and 10-minutes would also be implemented to reduce running times by 15 minutes. However, the 15-minute reduction in running time would include the following two major activities that are not included in the 5 or 10-minute reductions:

• At greater speeds, such as 60 mph, the following considerations associated running on jointed rail take on greater importance: passenger comfort and the reliability of rail and rail joints. Due to the age of the rail (107 lb./yd. jointed relay rail installed in 1936) it is proposed that all existing rail would be removed


40

and replaced with new 136 pounds per yard continuous welded rail. All turnouts would be renewed with new 136-pound material.

• The Federal Railroad Administration requires that an automatic block signal system be in service on lines where passenger trains operate at speeds of 60 mph or greater. A signal system would be installed between Danbury and New Milford for the 15-minute reduction in run times. The signal system design would follow current MNR signal design practice: automatic signals (cab signals, no wayside signals except at interlockings), with remote-controlled powered turnouts for major diverging moves.

The track would be upgraded to permit 60 mph running speeds. The same assumptions listed in Section 1.2.3.1 for upgrading track would also be carried out for the 15-minute reduction in running time. The assumptions listed in Section 1.2.3.2 regarding the Housatonic River Bridge would also be carried out for the 15-minute reduction in running time. 1.2.5.2 Additional Superelevation Another difference between the proposed methods of reducing running times by 10 minutes and 15 minutes is that additional superelevation would be provided on certain curves to permit speeds of 60 mph. Underbalance would also be increased increase and the length of entrance and exit spirals on curves would increase where the additional superelevation is provided. This proposed reduction in running time by 15 minutes would require rehabilitation of the existing track but would not require new track construction or right of way acquisition. Widening of existing cuts and embankments is not anticipated. The proposed increase in superelevation and underbalance would permit a maximum allowable speed of 60 mph over 8.5 miles of the 14.3 miles between Danbury and New Milford. Table DNM – 6, Curve Data Chart: Proposed 60 MPH Operations, lists the curves that have been proposed for an increase in superelevation and underbalance. Figure DNM–9, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 15-Minute Reduction, indicates by milepost those locations where it is proposed to increase maximum allowable speeds by increasing superelevation and underbalance. The superelevation and underbalance changes would reduce the current base running time by 12 minutes; installation of powered turnouts would reduce the base running time by an additional 5 minutes (refer to Section 1.2.5.3). Figure DNM-10, Increased Speed vs. Time for 15-Minute Reduction, indicates the proposed running time based on the superelevation and underbalance changes and installation of powered turnouts. The estimated running time is 25.2 minutes (rounded to 26 minutes); the estimated existing running time, from Figure DNM-4, is 42 minutes.


41

The proposed increase in superelevation and underbalance is required to increase the maximum allowable speeds for commuter trains. HRRC freight trains generally operate at lower speeds. Proposed changes in superelevation would need to be coordinated with HRRC to verify that potential train handling concerns are identified and addressed. 1.2.5.3 Install Signal System with Remote Control, Powered Turnouts at Danbury and

Berkshire Jct. The Federal Railroad Administration requires that an automatic signal system be installed on railroad lines in which passenger service operates at speeds of 60 mph or greater. The purpose of the signal system is to provide for the safe separation of trains. With the provision of the signal system, the hand-operated turnouts at Danbury and Berkshire Junction should be converted to remote control, powered turnouts. This will eliminate the need for trains to stop and crew members to manually operate the turnouts. This improvement would save an estimated 2.5 minutes at each location, contributing an estimated reduction of 5 minutes to the total 16-minute reduction in run time. It is noted that the Maybrook Line and Berkshire Line could also be upgraded to 59 mph, which would eliminate the need for a signal system. Even at 59 mph operations, the hand-operated turnouts at Danbury and Berkshire Junction should be converted to remote control, powered turnouts to provide the 15-minute reduction in running time. An automatic block signal system would not have to be provided between interlockings. Current practice on most U.S. commuter rail systems is to provide automatic signal systems on lines with higher speed operations. This report assumes that a new signal system would be installed along the entire length of the Danbury – New Milford segment. 1.2.5.4 Cost Estimate The estimated trackwork cost for the 15-minute reduction in running time includes the cost for installing new welded rail and renewing all turnouts with new steel. The cost estimate for the 15-minute reduction in running time also includes installation of an automatic signal system and powered turnouts. These items were not included in the cost estimates to reduce running times by 5 and 10-minutes. The estimated costs assume that the track and signal work is contracted out rather than carried out by HRRC force account. Major activities:





42

• Re-timber three open deck bridges to increase superelevation: UG 78.74 (Beaver Brook Road), UG 2.44 (Center Road) and UG 8.95 (Still River).



• Upgrade track for 60 mph operations. Renew every third timber crosstie, Change out existing rail and replace with new continuous welded rail. The proposed increase in superelevation and lengthening of spirals would be carried out with the track upgrade.

• Upgrade Housatonic River Bridge. • Adjust crossing starts at the six public grade crossings. • Install automatic signal system / Centralized Traffic Control. • Install fiber optic communications cable for signal and switch control and MNR

communications.

Estimated costs:

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 1,600,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 0 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $ 4,410,000 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 850,000 TRACK $21,048,183 SIGNALS $ 2,787,153 COMMUNICATIONS $ 3,575,000 SUB-TOTAL $34,270,336 10% DESIGN $ 3,427,034 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 5,140,550 40% CONTINGENCY $13,708,135 GRAND TOTAL $56,546,055 ROUNDED $57M

1.2.5.5 Summary The 15-minute reduction in running time between Danbury and New Milford would require three major activities: 1) Completely rehabilitate the existing track and install new rail between Danbury and New Milford to permit 60 mph running speeds; 2) Increase superelevation and underbalance and lengthen spirals on certain curves to permit an increase in maximum allowable speeds over those curves; and 3) Install an automatic signal system, including power turnouts at Danbury and Berkshire Junction. The estimated cost associated with the railroad construction is $57M.


43

2.0 EVALUATE FEASIBILITY OF DOUBLE TRACKING 2.1 SOUTH NORWALK – DANBURY 2.1.1 Existing Alignment 2.1.1.1 Overview The single-track configuration of the Danbury Branch is not conducive to increasing service. Peak period, reverse commute service cannot be provided because of the frequency of trains in the prevailing direction and the lack of adequately spaced passing sidings to accommodate opposing trains. The construction of a second main track on the Danbury Branch would enable the operation of bi-directional service during peak periods. Another major benefit is the greater operational flexibility provided by a second main track; as an example, planned track maintenance, such as surfacing, can be carried out, as trains are run on the adjacent track. 2.1.1.2 Construction Considerations The Danbury Branch was originally constructed as a single-track railroad. Other than short passing sidings, a second main track was never constructed. The existing right-of-way is generally not wide enough to provide a second track, unless retaining walls are used along most of the route. To minimize the use of costly retaining walls, adjacent property would have to be acquired along most of the route for widening cuts and embankments. New overhead and undergrade bridges would have to be constructed to accommodate the second track. Due to the many curves and varied topography of the Danbury Branch, a detailed study would have to be undertaken to determine the locations where the new track would be built to the east side or west side of the existing track. The design would need to consider the following:

• Minimize earthwork and retaining walls. • Avoid restrictive curvature on the new track (which may require a lower speed

than on the adjacent, existing track). • Minimize infringement into sensitive environmental areas. • Minimize disruption to existing commuter rail service.

Other major cost implications:

• Numerous cuts and fills would be required to support the widened railroad roadbed. Overhead and underground utility lines would have to be relocated. Portions of the aerial fiber optic line supported by the adjacent catenary structures would have to be relocated.


44

• Existing overhead highway bridges would be lengthened to span the second track. In most cases, a new bridge would have to be built over both tracks, adjacent to the existing bridge, so that roadway traffic would not be disrupted.

• New, single track, undergrade bridges would be built adjacent to the existing, undergrade bridges.

• A major additional cost element included in this estimate is the widening of the 350-ft. long Wall Street Tunnel in Norwalk to accommodate the second track. The cost estimate provides an allowance of $15M for this work. An additional study would have to be undertaken to determine the alternatives and costs and provide recommendations for constructing a second track at this location.

• Existing railroad highway grade crossings would be re-constructed as a two-track crossing.

• Portions of U.S. 7 and the Sympaug Turnpike that are immediately adjacent to the proposed second track may have to be relocated or modified.

• High-level platforms would be constructed along the new track at all existing station stops. Platform design and construction would be similar to current MNR practice. A pedestrian overpass would be provided to connect the northbound and southbound platforms.

The new second main will be signaled for bi-directional running. We have assumed that new universal interlockings would be installed at Wilton, Branchville and Danbury to facilitate operations. We have assumed that the new interlockings would be remote controlled, power-operated switches. All other turnouts would be electric locks. The existing single-track railroad is assumed to have a signal system that would have to be modified due to the new interlockings. We have also assumed that the new second main track would tie into the New Haven Line at CP 241 in South Norwalk by means of a new, remote controlled, power-operated turnout. 2.1.1.3 Cost Estimate The cost estimate prepared for constructing a second main track adjacent to the current single track is intended as an order of magnitude estimate only. The estimate is intended only for rough budgeting and should not be considered as a detailed engineering estimate. The following assumptions were used in developing the estimate:


be contracted out. MNR force account will be used for work on existing track and signals. Signal work on new track construction would be contracted out, with MNR overseeing final testing and cutover.

• Unit costs have been adjusted to reflect Fourth Quarter 2003 figures. • Adjacent property would be acquired to accommodate the second main track.

The existing right-of-way would be widened an assumed average of 50 ft. along the 23.3 miles of existing alignment.


45



• Excavated material will be hauled to a spoil site 20 miles from the project site. • Embankment will be constructed with 2H:1V side slopes using borrow material. • Cut sections will be constructed in stable rock with 1.5H:1V side slopes. • It is not possible to evaluate utility modifications. A lump sum figure has been set

aside for utility relocation and modification. • The subgrade for new track will be constructed to support one track. • A 6-inch layer of sub-ballast will be provided. • New track will be constructed with concrete crossties and continuous welded rail


• Existing track that would be used in the final alignment will not be upgraded with concrete crossties or new continuous welded rail. Existing track will be lined and surfaced and existing curves will be superelevated for 60 mph operations.

• New universal interlockings would utilize No. 20 turnouts to permit 45 mph diverging moves to the adjacent track. Other turnouts will be provided with electric locks (such as leads to industrial tracks and maintenance of way set-off tracks). These other turnouts are assumed to be No. 10 turnouts.


• All public highways will be grade separated where they intersect new track construction. At-grade crossings would be retained where existing track is used in the final alignment. The crossing starts for these at-grade highway crossings will be adjusted for the higher speed operations.

• New overhead highway bridges are assumed to be of deck girder construction, each with two traffic lanes and two full width shoulders. The new overhead bridges would be built adjacent to the existing overhead bridge. New roadway approach alignments will be required. The new bridge will span two tracks.

• The existing signal system would be modified for the new interlockings and will be compatible with the assumed in-place system (cab signals, no wayside signals except at interlockings).



• Site remediation and environmental mitigation associated with construction. • MNR work trains, office support, and flagging.


46

The existing crossovers on the New Haven Line may have to be reconfigured to provide access to the second main track of the Danbury Branch. Costs associated with the potential reconfiguration of the New Haven Line’s CP 241 have not been included in this cost estimate. Estimated costs:

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 28,200,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 1,660,000 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $ 57,585,774 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 35,387,000 TRACK $ 25,863,649 SIGNALS $ 3,417,470 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $152,113,893 10% DESIGN $ 15,211,389 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 22,817,084 40% CONTINGENCY $ 60,845,557 GRAND TOTAL $250,987,923 ROUNDED $251M

2.1.2 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time by 5 Minutes 2.1.2.1 Overview Improvements to reduce running time by 5 minutes on the existing single track were discussed in Section 1.1.4 of this report and generally consisted of increasing superelevation on certain curves and constructing a new high-level platform at Merritt 7 (to replace the current low level platform). It is assumed that these improvements on the existing single track are carried out before the second main track is constructed. 2.1.2.2 Construction Considerations The construction required for a second main track that reduces running time by 5 minutes would be similar to the construction required to double track the existing alignment. The same construction considerations listed in Section 2.1.1.2 of this report would apply. 2.1.2.3 Cost Estimate The estimated cost to construct a second main track and reduce running time by 5 minutes would be essentially identical to the estimated cost required to double track the existing alignment. The primary difference is the cost for additional ballast, lining and


47

surfacing on curves. The same cost estimate assumptions and exclusions listed in Section 2.1.1.3 of this report would apply. The estimated cost to construct the second track assumes that the original single track was previously upgraded to reduce running times by 5 minutes. The estimated cost:

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 28,200,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 1,660,000 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $ 57,585,774 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 35,387,000 TRACK $ 28,229,639 SIGNALS $ 3,417,470 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $154,479,883 10% DESIGN $ 15,447,988 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 23,171,982 40% CONTINGENCY $ 61,791,953 GRAND TOTAL $254,891,806 ROUNDED $255M

2.1.3 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time by 10 Minutes 2.1.3.1 Overview Improvements to reduce running time by 10 minutes on the existing single track were discussed in Section 1.1.5 of this report and generally consisted of constructing 10.2 miles of new alignment in order to provide a maximum allowable speed of 60 mph over the entire South Norwalk to Danbury segment. In addition, superelevation on certain curves would be increased to accommodate 60 mph running on that part of the 13.1 miles of existing alignment that would be retained. It is assumed that these improvements on the existing single track are carried out before the second main track is constructed. In addition to constructing 23.3 track miles of second track, other major activities would be carried out. New high level platforms and overhead pedestrian bridges would be constructed along the new second track at all station stops. A new signal system would be installed on both tracks to account for the new alignment and new interlockings. 2.1.3.2 Construction Considerations A key assumption in developing this cost estimate is that the construction associated with reducing the running time by 10-minutes on the single-track was carried out and


48

completed and that the single-track line was operational before construction of the second-track is undertaken. This assumption governs the estimated cost of the earthwork construction. It is assumed that the 10.2 miles of new track construction associated with the 10-minute reduction in running time on the single track made provisions for a future second main track; specifically, it is assumed that the service road constructed adjacent to the new track construction (see Section 1.1.5) would be used as the roadbed for the second main track. Likewise, it is assumed that the overhead bridges built over the new single-track alignment (and service road) were originally built long enough to span two tracks. The estimates for the service road and new overhead bridges were included with the cost estimate to reduce running time by 10 minutes on single-track (Section 1.1.5). The existing cuts and fills along the 13.1 miles of existing alignment that will be retained will have to be widened. The cost to widen existing cuts and fills is included in this estimate to construct a second track while reducing running times by 10 minutes. This estimate assumes that the existing Wall Street Tunnel in Norwalk would be sealed and abandoned because a new alignment would be constructed to the west of this location. The new second main would be signaled for bi-directional running. This report assumes that new universal interlockings will be installed at Wilton, Branchville and Danbury to facilitate operations. We have assumed that the new interlockings would be remote controlled, power-operated switches. All other turnouts would be equipped with electric locks. The existing single-track railroad is assumed to have a signal system that will have to be replaced due to the new alignment and the new interlockings. We have also assumed that the new second main track would tie into the New Haven Line at CP 241 in South Norwalk by means of a new, remote controlled, power-operated turnout. 2.1.3.3 Cost Estimate The cost considerations to construct a second main track and reduce running time by 10 minutes would be similar to the cost considerations to reduce running time by 10 minutes on the single-track railroad. The same cost estimate assumptions and exclusions listed in Section 1.1.5.3 of this report would apply. In addition, the following items would be factored in to the cost estimate:

• Adjacent property would be acquired to accommodate the second main track along that that portion of the existing alignment that would be retained in the final configuration. The existing right-of-way would be widened an assumed average of 50 ft. along 13.1 miles of existing alignment.

• The cost to widen cuts and fills on the 13.1 miles of existing alignment that would be retained in the final configuration.

• The cost to construct 23.3 track miles of the new second main track. • The cost to construct undergrade bridges for the new second track. • The cost to construct high-level platforms and pedestrian bridges.


49

• A new signal system would be required on both main tracks (cab signals, no wayside signals except at interlockings). The signal system on the retained existing track would have to be modified due to the extensive alignment changes.

The estimated cost:

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 15,900,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 470,000 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $345,576,991 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 24,888,000 TRACK $ 37,553,820 SIGNALS $ 5,941,225 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $430,330,036 10% DESIGN $ 43,033,004 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 64,549,505 40% CONTINGENCY $172,132,014 GRAND TOTAL $710,044,559 ROUNDED $710M

2.1.4 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time by 15 Minutes 2.1.4.1 Overview Improvements to reduce running time by 15 minutes on the existing single track were discussed in Section 1.1.6 of this report and generally consisted of constructing 13.7 miles of new alignment in order to provide a maximum allowable speed of 60 mph over the entire South Norwalk to Danbury segment. Maximum speeds of 70 mph would be provided on the long tangents between Branchville and Danbury. In addition, superelevation on certain curves would be increased to accommodate 60 mph running on that part of the 9.6 miles of existing alignment that would be retained. It is assumed that these improvements on the existing single track are carried out before the second main track is constructed. In addition to constructing 23.3 track miles of second track, other major activities would be carried out. New high level platforms and overhead pedestrian bridges would be constructed along the new second track at all station stops. A new signal system would be installed on both tracks to account for the new alignment and new interlockings. 2.1.4.2 Construction Considerations A key assumption in developing this cost estimate is that the construction associated with reducing the running time by 15-minutes on the single-track was carried out and


50

completed and that the single-track line was operational before construction of the second-track is undertaken. This assumption governs the estimated cost of the earthwork construction. It is assumed that the 13.7 miles of new track construction associated with the 15-minute reduction in running time on the single track made provisions for a future second main track; specifically, it is assumed that the service road constructed adjacent to the new track construction (see Section 1.1.6) would be used as the roadbed for the second main track. Likewise, it is assumed that the overhead bridges built over the new single-track alignment (and service road) were originally built long enough to span two tracks. The estimates for the service road and new overhead bridges were included with the cost estimate to reduce running time by 15 minutes on single-track (Section 1.1.6). The existing cuts and fills along the 9.6 miles of existing alignment that would be retained would have to be widened. The cost to widen existing cuts and fills is included in this estimate to construct a second track while reducing running times by 15 minutes. This estimate assumes that the existing Wall Street Tunnel in Norwalk would be sealed and abandoned because a new alignment would be constructed to the west of this location. The new second main would be signaled for bi-directional running. This report assumes that new universal interlockings would be installed at Wilton, Branchville and Danbury to facilitate operations. We have assumed that the new interlockings would be remote controlled, power-operated switches. All other turnouts would be provided with electric lock switches. The existing single-track railroad is assumed to have a signal system that would have to be replaced due to the new alignment and the new interlockings. We have also assumed that the new second main track would tie into the New Haven Line at CP 241 in South Norwalk by means of a new, remote controlled, power-operated turnout. 2.1.4.3 Cost Estimate The cost considerations to construct a second main track and reduce running time by 15 minutes would be similar to the cost considerations to reduce running time by 15 minutes on the single-track railroad. The same cost estimate assumptions and exclusions listed in Section 1.1.6.3 of this report would apply. In addition, the following items would be factored in to the cost estimate:

• Adjacent property would be acquired to accommodate the second main track along that that portion of the existing alignment that would be retained in the final configuration. The existing right-of-way would be widened an assumed average of 50 ft. along 9.6 miles of existing alignment.

• The cost to widen cuts and fills on the 9.6 miles of existing alignment that would be retained in the final configuration.

• The cost to construct the 23.3 track miles of new second main track. • The cost to construct undergrade bridges for the new second track. • The cost to construct high-level platforms and pedestrian bridges.


51

• A new signal system will be required on both main tracks (cab signals, no wayside signals except at interlockings). The signal system on the retained existing track would have to be modified due to the extensive alignment changes.

The estimated cost:

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 11,600,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 470,000 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $569,269,463 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 24,888,000 TRACK $ 40,725,570 SIGNALS $ 6,179,211 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $653,132,244 10% DESIGN $ 65,313,224 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 97,969,837 40% CONTINGENCY $261,252,898 GRAND TOTAL $1,077,668,203 ROUNDED $1.1B

2.2 DANBURY – NEW MILFORD 2.2.1 Existing Alignment 2.2.1.1 Overview The existing Maybrook Line between Danbury and Berkshire Junction currently consists of two tracks. The Berkshire Line between Berkshire Junction and Danbury consists of a single track with short run-around sidings at three locations to facilitate switching of freight customers. Construction of a second track on the Berkshire Line would require additional right-of-way acquisition to widen existing cuts and fills; the need for additional right-of-way is not anticipated on the Maybrook Line. This report assumes that commuter rail service has previously been in operation at the time the second track is constructed. Station stops, including parking lots and high-level platforms, are provided at Danbury North, Brookfield and New Milford. 2.2.1.2 Construction Considerations The Berkshire Line was originally constructed as a single-track railroad. Other than short run-around sidings, a second main track was never constructed. The existing right-of-way is generally not wide enough to provide a second track. Adjacent property would have to be acquired along most of the route for widening cuts and embankments. New


52

overhead and undergrade bridges would have to be constructed to accommodate the second track. Due to the many curves and varied topography of the Berkshire Line, a detailed study would have to be undertaken to determine the locations where the new track would be built to the east side or west side of the existing track. The design would need to consider the following:

• Minimize earthwork and retaining walls. • Avoid restrictive curvature on the new track (which would require a lower speed

than on the adjacent, existing track). • Minimize infringement into sensitive environmental areas. • Coordination with Housitonic Railroad and their on-line customers.

Other major cost implications:

• Numerous cuts and fills would be required to support the widened railroad roadbed. Overhead and underground utility lines would have to be relocated.

• Existing overhead highway bridges would be lengthened to span the second track. In most cases, a new bridge would have to be built over both tracks, adjacent to the existing bridge.

• New, single track, undergrade bridges would be built adjacent to the existing, undergrade bridges.

• Existing railroad - highway grade crossings would be re-constructed as a two-track crossing.

• A new bridge would be built over the Housitonic River to carry the new second track.

This report assumes that the existing single-track operation is not signaled at the time that the second track is cutover. A signal system is not provided on the new second track due to the slow running speeds on the existing line and proposed second track. The two main tracks would be operated under manual block rules. New, hand throw universal crossovers would be installed at Danbury, Berkshire Junction, Brookfield and New Milford. 2.2.1.3 Cost Estimate The cost estimate prepared for constructing a second main track adjacent to the existing main track is intended as order of magnitude estimate only. The estimate is intended only for rough budgeting and should not be considered as a detailed engineering estimate. The following assumptions were used in developing the estimate:


be contracted out.


53

• Unit costs have been adjusted to reflect Fourth Quarter 2003 figures. • Adjacent property along the Berkshire Line would be acquired to accommodate

the second main. The existing right-of-way would be widened an assumed average of 50 ft. along 14.1 miles of existing alignment.



• Excavated material will be hauled to a spoil site 20 miles from the project site. • Embankment will be constructed with 2H:1V side slopes using borrow material. • Cut sections will be constructed in stable rock with 1.5H:1V side slopes. • It is not possible to evaluate utility modifications. A lump sum figure has been set

aside for utility relocation and modification. • The subgrade for new track will be constructed to support one track. • A 6-inch layer of sub-ballast will be provided. • New track will be constructed with concrete crossties and continuous welded rail


• The existing single track is assumed to be in adequate condition for 30 mph operations and will not be upgraded.

• New, hand-throw crossovers will utilize No. 10 turnouts to access the adjacent track. Other turnouts located on the new second track (such as leads to industrial tracks and maintenance of way set-off tracks) will be new, hand-throw, No. 10 turnouts.


• Existing at-grade crossings will be retained and new crossings will be constructed on the second track. Flashing lights and gates will be provided at public crossings for both tracks.

• New overhead highway bridges are assumed to be of deck girder construction, each with two traffic lanes and two full width shoulders. The new overhead bridges will be built adjacent to the existing overhead bridge. New roadway approach alignments will be required. The new bridge will span two tracks.

• High-level platforms would be constructed along the new track at the three station stops. Platform design and construction would be similar to current MNR practice. A pedestrian overpass would be provided to connect the northbound and southbound platforms.




54

• Site remediation and environmental mitigation associated with construction. • HRRC office support and flagging.

The estimated cost:

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 15,100,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 1,420,000 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $ 35,250,163 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 19,050,000 TRACK $ 12,455,500 SIGNALS $ 438,793 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $ 83,714,456 10% DESIGN $ 8,371,446 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 12,557,168 40% CONTINGENCY $ 33,485,782 GRAND TOTAL $138,128,852

ROUNDED $138M 2.2.2 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time by 5 and 10

Minutes 2.2.2.1 Overview This report assumes that commuter rail service has previously been in operation at the time that the second track is constructed. The existing single track was previously upgraded for maximum speeds of either 40 mph (to reduce running time by 5 minutes) or 50 mph (to reduce running times by 10 minutes). Station stops, including parking lots and high-level platforms, are provided at Danbury North, Brookfield and New Milford. 2.2.2.2 Construction Considerations The requirements for constructing a second main track and reducing running time by either 5 minutes or 10 minutes would be essentially identical to the construction required to double track the existing alignment. The same construction considerations listed in Section 2.2.1.2 of this report would apply, except as noted in the following cost estimate assumptions. 2.2.2.3 Cost Estimate The estimated cost to construct a second main track and reduce running time by either 5 minutes or 10 minutes would be essentially identical to the estimated cost required to double track the existing alignment. The primary difference is the additional cost


55

associated with upgrading the existing second main track of the Maybrook Line between Danbury and Berkshire Junction to permit higher speeds. The same cost estimate assumptions and exclusions listed in Section 2.2.1.3 of this report would apply. Note that the cost estimate for constructing the second track assumes that the existing single-track was previously upgraded to reduce running times by either 5 or 10 minutes. The estimated cost:

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 13,500,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 1,420,000 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $ 35,250,163 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 19,050,000 TRACK $ 14,573,793 SIGNALS $ 438,793 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $ 84,232,749 10% DESIGN $ 8,423,275 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 12,634,912 40% CONTINGENCY $ 33,693,100 GRAND TOTAL $138,984,036 ROUNDED $139M

2.2.3 Existing Alignment Modified to Reduce Running Time by 15 Minutes 2.2.3.1 Overview This report assumes that commuter rail service has previously been in operation at the time that the second track is constructed. The existing single track was previously upgraded for maximum speeds of 60 mph (to reduce running time by 15 minutes). Station stops, including parking lots and high-level platforms, are provided at Danbury North, Brookfield and New Milford 2.2.3.2 Construction Considerations The requirements for constructing a second main track and reducing running time by 15 minutes would be essentially identical to the construction required to double track the existing alignment. The same construction considerations listed in Section 2.2.1.2 of this report would apply, except as noted in the following cost estimate assumptions. 2.2.3.3 Cost Estimate


56

The estimated cost to construct a second main track and reduce running time by 15 minutes is based on the estimated cost required to double track the existing alignment. The following additional costs would be included:

• The existing second main track of the Maybrook Line between Danbury and Berkshire Junction would be upgraded new 136 pounds per yard continuous welded rail. Turnouts on these tracks would also be renewed with new switch timbers and new steel.

• Both main tracks between Danbury and New Milford would be signaled for bi-directional running. This report assumes that new universal interlockings would be installed at Danbury (connection between the MNR Danbury Branch and HRRC Maybrook Line), Berkshire Junction, Brookfield and New Milford to facilitate operations. We have assumed that the new interlockings would be remote controlled, power-operated switches. All other turnouts would be provided with electric lock switches.

The same cost estimate assumptions and exclusions listed in Section 2.2.1.3 of this report would apply. Note that the cost estimate for constructing the second track assumes that the existing single-track was previously upgraded to reduce running times by 15 minutes. The estimated cost:

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 13,500,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 1,420,000 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $ 35,250,163 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 19,050,000 TRACK $ 16,221,946 SIGNALS $ 2,926,663 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $ 88,368,771 10% DESIGN $ 8,836,877 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 13,255,316 40% CONTINGENCY $ 35,347,509 GRAND TOTAL $145,808,473 ROUNDED $146M


57

3.0 EVALUATE FEASIBILITY OF PASSING SIDINGS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO DOUBLE TRACKING

3.1 APPROACH USED TO LOCATE PASSING SIDINGS 3.1.1 Passing Sidings vs. Double Track Passing sidings enable two trains to pass each other on single-track main lines. Both trains could be traveling in the same direction, such as an express train making limited stops and overtaking a local train making all stops. Alternatively, both trains could be traveling in opposing directions. In either situation, one of the two trains will enter the siding and it will not re-enter the main line until the other train is passed and permission is given to enter the main line. The train entering the siding will usually have to reduce speed before entering the siding due to the geometry of the turnouts leading into the siding. The length of the siding will determine whether the train in the siding will have to stop to let the other train pass by. In longer sidings the train can keep moving, but possibly at much reduced speeds. The duration that a train occupies the siding depends on various factors, including the distance between sidings on the line and the volume of traffic. The train operating on the main line (and passing the train in the siding) generally does not have to reduce speed from the maximum allowable speed. Generally, the railroad Dispatcher will determine which train will enter the siding. Employee timetables will generally indicate if a specific train is scheduled to enter a siding, however, the Dispatcher has final authority. This report will evaluate two types of passing siding configurations:

• Short, “meet” sidings, which are only long enough to hold one, stopped train. • Longer, “roll by” sidings, which are long enough to allow a train in the siding to

keep on moving while it is passed by a train on the adjacent main line. The primary advantage of constructing passing sidings at intermittent locations rather than constructing a second main track is the lower capital cost. Items to consider include availability of right-of-way, environmental concerns, public concerns, site characteristics (topography and geotechnical), demolition requirements, and construction access. The primary advantage of double track is the greater flexibility provided in operating the service (and maintaining schedules during unusual events or scheduled track maintenance) and the ability to accommodate more traffic (greater line capacity). As an interim approach, passing sidings can be located and designed to accommodate the construction of a future second main track (the new track would connect the existing sidings).


58

3.1.2 String Line Diagrams String line diagrams were developed for this report in order to determine the conceptual passing siding locations between South Norwalk, Danbury and New Milford. Passing siding locations were determined for the 5, 10 and 15-minute reductions in running time discussed earlier in this report. Current MNR Danbury Branch schedules were used to develop the string line diagrams for service between South Norwalk and New Milford. The following assumptions were used:

• All northbound trains listed in the MNR public timetable in affect at the time this report was initiated (April 27, 2003 to October 26, 2003) will operate northward from Danbury to New Milford. Likewise, all southbound trains will originate in New Milford, stop in Danbury and continue on to South Norwalk. It is noted that not all trains would actually be extended to New Milford.

• All current northbound and southbound MNR Danbury Branch trains must enter the MNR New Haven Line at CP 241, including the South Norwalk – Danbury shuttle trains. It may not be possible to re-schedule Danbury Branch trains to enter or leave South Norwalk at various times due to the current volume of scheduled traffic on the New Haven Line. For this report, and with respect to siding locations, it is assumed that all northbound Danbury Branch trains will leave South Norwalk per MNR public timetable in affect at the time this report was initiated (April 27, 2003 to October 25, 2003). Likewise, it is assumed that all southbound Danbury Branch trains will arrive at South Norwalk per the same public timetable.

• The 5-minute, 10-minute and 15-minute reduction in running times between South Norwalk and Danbury are based on the base run times developed in Sections 1.1.4, 1.1.5 and 1.1.6 of this report, respectively.

• The 5-minute, 10-minute and 15-minute reduction in running times between Danbury and New Milford are based on the base run times developed in Sections 1.2.3, 1.2.4 and 1.2.5 of this report, respectively.

3.1.3 Passing Siding Locations: 5-Minute Reduction in Running Time Referring to Figure SNNM-1, String Line Diagrams for Proposed 5 Minute Reduction in Running Time, the approximate mid-point of the proposed passing sidings would be located as follows:

• MP 8.5, Cannondale • MP 0.5, Danbury North • MP 6.0, north of Brookfield • MP 10.0, south of New Milford


59


• MP 12.5, Branchville • MP 4.5, Brookfield • MP 10.0, south of New Milford


• MP 12.8, Branchville • MP 10.0, south of New Milford

3.2 PROPOSED LENGTHS OF PASSING SIDINGS 3.2.1 Short ‘Meet” Sidings The proposed length of each short “meet” siding is 2000 track feet. This length will accommodate a 12-car train. Once clear of the main line, the train would stop and wait in the siding until main line is cleared. 3.2.2 Long “Roll By” Sidings The proposed minimum length of the long sidings is 2 miles. The siding would be signaled for a maximum speed of 30 mph. The moving train will occupy the siding for a minimum of 4 minutes. A train on the adjacent main line moving at 60 mph will occupy the main line for 2 minutes. Operations with the 2-mile sidings will require strict adherence to schedules; late running will delay the train in the siding. Longer sidings on the order of 3 to 4 miles in length may be more practical from an operations perspective since the longer, peak period trains take more time to travel over the line. If the sidings get this long, it may be more practical to double track the Danbury – New Milford segment for the 5 or 10-minute reduction in running time. It appears that the South Norwalk – Danbury segment would not need to be double tracked for the 5, 10 and 15-minute reduction in running time, however, passing sidings would be required. Likewise Danbury – New Milford segment would not need to be double tracked for the


60

15-minute reduction in running time, however, a passing siding would be required south of New Milford. The proposed “roll-by” passing siding south of New Milford would require construction of a second bridge over the Housatonic River to convey the siding. It may be more practical to “tweak” the schedules so that trains would meet at the existing siding at New Milford station. However, the existing siding at New Milford would have to be lengthened and right-of-way may have to be acquired. It should be recognized that these proposed siding locations and lengths are based on the previously listed assumptions and are strictly conceptual. Additional analysis will be needed to determine specific siding locations and lengths; using MNR future projected schedules for the Danbury Branch and New Haven Line. 3.3 COST ESTIMATES FOR PASSING SIDINGS: SOUTH NORWALK –

DANBURY; DANBURY – NEW MILFORD 3.3.1 Cost Estimate Assumptions The cost estimates for passing siding construction were developed in a similar fashion as the cost estimates for double tracking. The following assumptions were used to develop the cost estimates:

• The existing right-of-way would be widened by 50 ft. to accommodate the new sidings. The additional right-of-way would be acquired.

• Existing cuts and fills would be widened to accommodate the new track. • The sidings would be connected to the mainline by new No. 15 turnouts. • Track construction for sidings would consist of new 136 pounds per yard

continuous welded rail installed on concrete crossties. • The turnouts leading to the sidings will be interlocked. • Public roadways intersecting the proposed sidings would be grade-separated;

private crossings would be constructed as at-grade crossings. Roadway approaches to the new bridges would be constructed on new alignments to facilitate construction and to maintain roadway traffic.

• New, undergrade, single-track, ballast deck bridges would be constructed adjacent to existing mainline bridges.

• New high level platform and pedestrian bridge would be constructed on the siding if the siding is located at an existing station.

The siding construction estimates reflect Fourth Quarter 2003 costs.


61



• Site remediation and environmental mitigation associated with construction. • MNR / HRRC work trains, office support, and flagging.

3.3.2 Proposed Reduction in Running Time of 5 Minutes 3.3.2.1 Short “Meet” Sidings: The estimated cost: S. Norwalk – Danbury Danbury – New Milford

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 500,000 $ 1,400,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 0 $ 0 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $ 604,529 $ 4,413,586 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 600,000 $ 750,000 TRACK $ 562,800 $ 1,688,308 SIGNALS $ 3,417,470 $ 438,793 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $ 5,684,799 $ 8,690,687 10% DESIGN $ 568,480 $ 869,069 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 852,720 $ 1,303,603 40% CONTINGENCY $ 2,273,920 $ 3,476,275 GRAND TOTAL $ 9,379,918 $14,339,634 ROUNDED $ 9M $14M

3.3.2.2 Long “Roll-By” Sidings: The estimated cost: S. Norwalk – Danbury Danbury – New Milford

R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 2,400,000 $ 7,300,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 240,000 $ 240,000 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $ 5,791,912 $12,175,736 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 3,900,000 $12,350,000 TRACK $ 2,192,624 $ 6,577,885 SIGNALS $ 3,417,470 $ 438,793 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $17,942,006 $39,082,413


62

10% DESIGN $ 1,794,201 $ 3,908,241 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 2,691,301 $ 5,862,362 40% CONTINGENCY $ 7,176,802 $15,632,965 GRAND TOTAL $29,604,310 $64,485,982 ROUNDED $30M $64M


R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 500,000 $ 900,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 0 $ 240,000 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $ 604,529 $ 3,809,058 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 750,000 $ 900,000 TRACK $ 562,800 $ 1,187,077 SIGNALS $ 5,941,225 $ 438,793 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $ 8,358,554 $ 7,474,928 10% DESIGN $ 835,855 $ 747,493 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 1,253,783 $ 1,121,239 40% CONTINGENCY $ 3,343,422 $ 2,989,971 GRAND TOTAL $13,791,614 $12,333,631 ROUNDED $14M $12M


R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 2,400,000 $ 4,800,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 240,000 $ 240,000 SITE & CIVIL $ 5,791,912 $ 8,983,824 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 4,000,000 $10,100,000 TRACK $ 2,192,624 $ 4,385,423 SIGNALS $ 5,941,225 $ 438,793 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $20,565,761 $28,948,040


63

10% DESIGN $ 2,056,576 $ 2,894,804 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 3,084,864 $ 4,342,206 40% CONTINGENCY $ 8,226,304 $11,579,216 GRAND TOTAL $33,933,505 $47,764,266 ROUNDED $34M $48M


R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 500,000 $ 500,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 0 $ 0 SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS $ 3,204,529 $ 604,529 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 822,000 $ 0 TRACK $ 562,800 $ 562,769 SIGNALS $ 6,179,211 $ 2,924,983 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $11,268,540 $ 4,592,281 10% DESIGN $ 1,126,854 $ 459,228 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 1,690,281 $ 688,842 40% CONTINGENCY $ 4,507,416 $ 1,836,912 GRAND TOTAL $18,593,091 $ 7,577,264 ROUNDED $19M $ 8M


R-O-W ACQUISITION $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 ROADWAY RELOCATION $ 0 $ 0 SITE & CIVIL $ 5,791,912 $ 3,191,912 UG / OH BRIDGES $ 2,922,000 $ 9,200,000 TRACK $ 2,192,624 $ 2,192,962 SIGNALS $ 6,179,211 $ 3,463,437 COMMUNICATIONS $ 0 $ 0 SUB-TOTAL $19,485,747 $20,448,310


64

10% DESIGN $ 1,948,575 $ 2,044,831 15% CONSTR. PH. SVCS. $ 2,922,862 $ 3,067,247 40 % CONTINGENCY $ 7,794,299 $ 8,179,324 GRAND TOTAL $32,151,482 $33,739,712 ROUNDED $32M $34M


65

4.0 CONCEPTUAL SERVICE REVISIONS Another approach to reducing running time without major changes to the existing route alignment and infrastructure would be to revise service patterns. Currently, trains are fleeted in the prevailing direction of travel during peak periods; trains operate in both directions only during off-peak periods. In addition, each train currently makes all station stops. Two methods to improve running time would be to operate either skip stop service or express service. Skip stop service is the term used when one train follows another. The first train stops at every other station stop. The following train stops at the remaining stops. This method of operation is often used on heavily traveled rapid transit lines during peak periods. Express and local service is often used on longer commuter rail routes during peak periods. The express train would originate at the outer terminal during peak periods. After picking up passengers the train would run express (non-stop) to a major station stop, often located near the mid-point of the line. The train would then make all remaining stops. Following the express train would be a local train making all local stops. For this report, potential northbound express service was analyzed. A peak period northbound train would stop at South Norwalk and then run express to Branchville. The express would skip Merritt 7, Wilton and Cannondale and make station stops at Branchville, Redding, Bethel and Danbury. A local train would follow the express train. The local train would make stops at South Norwalk, Merritt 7, Wilton, Cannondale and Branchville. This local train could be scheduled to turn back at Branchville or continue on to Danbury. As discussed earlier in this report, the base running time between South Norwalk and Danbury, based on current track speeds, is 45 minutes. Two alternates were considered:

• Using the current alignment and a maximum speed of 50 mph, the estimated base running time of an express train between South Norwalk and Danbury would be 41.93 minutes, rounded to 42 minutes. This would reduce running time by 3 minutes for passengers traveling to Branchville and points north.

• Using the proposed alignment for which the base running time is reduced by 5 minutes (modifying the superelevation on certain curves to permit faster running, as discussed in Section 1.1.4), the estimated running time of an express train between South Norwalk and Danbury would be 38.46 minutes, rounded to 39 minutes. This would reduce running time by 6 minutes.

Assuming a consistent running speed of 60 mph, and a station dwell time of 60 seconds, the skipping of a station will reduce 1 minute from the base running time. Adding a station stop, such as the proposed Georgetown stop would add 1- 2 minutes to the base running time. If the maximum running speeds vary by location over the line, say 30 mph


66

to 60 mph, the time saved by skipping a station stop, would probably vary from the 1 minute calculated for consistent 60 mph speeds; the exact time savings would have to be calculated. It should be recognized that provision of express and local service might require capital funding for additional locomotives and coaches. Operating costs might also increase due the need for additional train crews and additional equipment maintenance.


67

5.0 TABLES, FIGURES AND APPENDICES Note: Tables, Figures and Appendices are found on the following pages behind tabs 13 - 19.


68

5.1 FIGURES: South Norwalk - Danbury

Figure SND-1, Location Map Figure SND-2, MNR Track Charts Figure SND-3, Sting Line Diagrams Of current Schedules Figure SND-4, Existing Maximum Allowable Speed with Speed Restrictions Figure SND-5, Existing Speed vs. Time Figure SND–6, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 5-Minute

Reduction Figure SND-7, Increased Speed vs. Time for 5-Minute Reduction Figure SND-8, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 10-Minute


70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

50

DA

NB

UR

Y

24Milepost

PASS

ENG

ER

STA

TIO

NS

S. N

OR

WA

LK

MER

RIT

T 7

WIL

TON

CA

NN

ON

DA

LE

BR

AN

CH

VILL

E

RED

DIN

G

BET

HEL

20 21 22 2316 17 18 1912 13 14 158 9 10 11

Spee

d (m

ph)

FIGURE SND-4

EXISTING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SPEED, WITH SPEED RESTRICTIONS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

FIGURE SND-5EXISTING SPEED VS. TIME

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.00

5.00

10.0

0

15.0

0

20.0

0

25.0

0

30.0

0

35.0

0

40.0

0

45.0

0

50.0

0

TIME IN MINUTES

SPEE

D IN

MPH

WIL

TON

MER

RIT

T 7

SOU

TH N

OR

WA

LK

CA

NN

ON

DA

LE

BR

AN

CH

VIL

LB

RA

NC

HV

ILLE

RED

DIN

G

BET

HEL

DA

NB

UR

Y

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

50

PASS

ENG

ER

STA

TIO

NS

Spee

d (m

ph)

10 116 7 8 95

S. N

OR

WA

LK

DA

NB

UR

Y

FIGURE SND-6 PROPOSED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SPEED FOR 5-MINUTE REDUCTION

12 13 14 15 16 17

INCREASED SPEED

EXISTING SPEED

24Milepost

20 21 22 232 31 4

INCREASED SPEED DUE TO INCREASING SUPERELEVATION AND UNDERBALANCE ON

CERTAIN CURVES ON THE EXISTING ALIGNMENT.

BET

HEL

WIL

TON

CA

NN

ON

DA

LE

18 19

MER

RIT

T 7

BR

AN

CH

VILL

E

RED

DIN

G

FIGURE SND-7INCREASED SPEED VS. TIME FOR 5-MIN. REDUCTION

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.00

5.00

10.0

0

15.0

0

20.0

0

25.0

0

30.0

0

35.0

0

40.0

0

45.0

0

TIME IN MINUTES

SP

EE

D IN

MP

H

SOU

TH N

OR

WA

LK

MER

RIT

T 7

WIL

TON

CA

NN

ON

DA

LE

BR

AN

CH

VIL

LE

RED

DIN

G

BET

HEL

DA

NB

UR

Y

BET

HEL

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

50

Spee

d (m

ph)

PROPOSED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SPEED FOR 10-MINUTE REDUCTION

EXISTING SPEED

INCREASED SPEED

1 2 3 4 5 11 12 136 7 8 9 24Milepost

18 19 20 2114 15 16 17

PASS

ENG

ER

STA

TIO

NS

S. N

OR

WA

LK

MER

RIT

T 7

WIL

TON

INCREASED SPEED DUE TO: 1) CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ALIGNMENT

BETWEEN MP 0.0 AND MP 9.9; 2) INCREASING SUPERELEVATION AND UNDERBALANCE ON

EXISTING ALIGNMENT BETWEEN MP 9.9 AND MP 11.6; AND, 3) CONSTRUCTION OF NEW

ALIGNMENT BETWEEN MP 11.6 AND MP 23.3.

DA

NB

UR

Y

FIGURE SND-8

CA

NN

ON

DA

LE

BR

AN

CH

VILL

E

RED

DIN

G

BET

HEL

22 2310


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.00

5.00

10.0

0

15.0

0

20.0

0

25.0

0

30.0

0

35.0

0

40.0

0

TIME IN MINUTES

SP

EE

D IN

MP

H

SOU

TH N

OR

WA

LK

MER

RIT

T 7

WIL

TON

CA

NN

ON

DA

LE

BR

AN

CH

VIL

LE

RED

DIN

G

BET

HEL

DA

NB

UR

Y

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

50 7 8 9

BR

AN

CH

VILL

E

RED

DIN

G

BET

HEL

PASS

ENG

ER

STA

TIO

NS

S. N

OR

WA

LK

MER

RIT

T 7

WIL

TON

Spee

d (m

ph)


EXISTING SPEED

INCREASED SPEED

1 2 3 4 5 6 24Milepost

18 19 20 2114 15 16 17

DA

NB

UR

Y

INCREASED SPEED DUE TO: 1) CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ALIGNMENT

BETWEEN MP 0.0 AND MP 9.9; 2) INCREASING SUPERELEVATION AND UNDERBALANCE ON

EXISTING ALIGNMENT BETWEEN MP 9.9 AND MP 11.6; AND, 3) CONSTRUCTION OF NEW

ALIGNMENT BETWEEN MP 11.6 AND MP 23.3.

22 2310 11 12 13

FIGURE SND-10

CA

NN

ON

DA

LE


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.00

5.00

10.0

0

15.0

0

20.0

0

25.0

0

30.0

0

35.0

0

TIME IN MINUTES

SP

EE

D IN

MP

H

MER

RIT

T 7

CA

NN

ON

DA

LE

BR

AN

CH

VIL

LE

RED

DIN

G

BET

HEL

DA

NB

UR

Y

SOU

TH N

OR

WA

LK

WIL

TON


69



TABLE SND - 1EXISTING CURVE DATA

1234

Stat

ion Curve

No.Degree of Curve

RH / LH Curve EQ (in.) Ea (in) Eu (in)

Max. Speed (MPH)

Length (mi)

Location (MP)

62 17 0 RH 1.19 ?? ?? 10 0.25 23.60

61 2 0 50' RH 0.79 1 -0.21 20 0.20 23.40

3 0 45' LH 1.05 1 0.05 20

2 0 37' LH 0.73 1 -0.27 20

2 0 00' LH 0.56 1 -0.44 20

2 0 40' LH 0.75 1 -0.25 20

1 0 53' LH 0.53 1 -0.47 20

1 0 33' LH 0.43 1 -0.57 20

Beth

el

3 0 22' LH 5.89 1.25 4.64 50

2 0 52' LH 5.02 1.25 3.77 50

1 0 30' LH 0.95 1.25 -0.31 30

1 0 51' LH 1.17 1.25 -0.08 30

58 1 0 07' RH 0.70 1 -0.30 30 0.10 20.15

57 1 0 15' RH 2.19 1.5 0.69 50 0.20 19.60 UG 19.64

56 3 0 30' LH 6.13 5 1.13 50 0.20 19.20

55 0 0 37' RH 1.08 1 0.08 50 0.15 19.00

54 3 0 00' RH 5.25 4 1.25 50 0.10 18.70

53 2 0 00' LH 3.50 2.25 1.25 50 0.30 18.35

4 0 15' LH 7.44 4.5 2.94 50

3 0 50' LH 6.71 4.5 2.21 50

0 0 45' RH 1.31 4 -2.69 50

4 0 00' RH 7.00 4 3.00 50

1 0 52' LH 3.27 3.5 -0.23 50

3 0 30' LH 6.13 3.5 2.63 50

2 0 00' LH 3.50 3.5 0.00 50

TANGENT TRACK

50

Compound Curve17.70

Compound Curve17.400.20

0.50

0.30

Compound Curve 3 AG x-ings, UG

22.940.75 22.80

Curve data from MNR 2003 Track Chart.

Underbalance, Eu, is the difference between equilibrium superelevation (EQ) and actual superelevation (Ea, from the track charts)

The MP location of the curves was taken at the approximate mid point.

Length & location of curves are approximate as they were scaled from the Track Chart.

Comments

Curve data chart: Existing MNR Operations - South Norwalk / DanburyMetro North RR - Danbury Br

Convention for RH or LH curve is facing RR north.

0.20

Dan

bury

51

52

60

59 Compound Curve with Speed Change in Curve, 3 AG x-

ings

20.70

18.00 Compound Curve

Rev. Curve


1234

Stat

ion Curve

No.Degree of Curve


Max. Speed (MPH)

Length (mi)

Location (MP)





Comments



Red

ding

49 3 0 00' LH 5.25 3 2.25 50 0.15 16.90

48 3 0 52' RH 6.77 4 2.77 50 0.20 16.70

3 0 57' RH 6.91 4 2.91 50

1 0 19' RH 1.13 4 -2.87 35

46 4 0 37' LH 3.96 3 0.96 35 0.15 15.35

45 2 0 00' RH 1.72 1.5 0.22 35 0.15 15.15

3 0 45' RH 3.22 2.5 0.72 35

5 0 00' RH 4.29 2.5 1.79 35

43 4 0 00' LH 3.43 2 1.43 35 0.20 14.60

42 3 0 52' LH 6.77 4.5 2.27 50 0.20 14.35

41 4 0 12' RH 7.35 4.5 2.85 50 0.10 14.10

40 2 0 45' RH 4.81 3 1.81 50 0.10 13.70

39 3 0 52' LH 6.77 4 2.77 50 0.20 13.55

3 0 45' RH 6.56 4 2.56 50

1 0 00' RH 1.75 4 -2.25 50

37 1 0 00' LH 1.75 1 0.75 50 0.20 13.10

1 0 00' RH 1.75 4 -2.25 50

3 0 00' RH 5.25 4 1.25 50

35 4 0 30' RH 7.88 5 2.88 50 0.15 12.35

3 0 22' LH 5.89 4.5 1.39 50

4 0 10' LH 7.29 4.5 2.79 50

2 0 00' LH 3.50 3 0.50 50

3 0 15' LH 5.69 3 2.69 50

3 0 30' RH 6.13 2.5 3.63 50

2 0 00' RH 3.50 2.5 1.00 50

31 0 0 45' RH 1.31 0.75 0.56 50 0.20 10.50

30 2 0 00' RH 3.50 2 1.50 50 0.20 10.05

29 3 0 57' LH 6.91 5.5 1.41 50 0.20 9.70

28 2 0 00' RH 3.50 2 1.50 50 0.15 9.40

27 2 0 00' LH 3.50 2 1.50 50 0.20 9.10

Short Tangent Between Reverse Curves



0.50 11.10 Compound Curve, UG 11.01

Compound Curve

TANGENT TRACK

Compound Curve, OH 11.79

33 0.20 11.40 Compound Curve

0.20 14.80

11.800.40

36 12.60 Compound Curve, AG 12.74, AG 12.01

47

Compound Curve, UG 14.80

0.40

0.20

0.25

32

15.60

44

Bran

ch-

ville

38

34

Compound with speed change in

curve

13.30


1234

Stat

ion Curve

No.Degree of Curve


Max. Speed (MPH)

Length (mi)

Location (MP)





Comments



Can

non-

da

le

26 2 0 07' RH 3.70 2.25 1.45 50 0.20 8.50

1 0 00' LH 1.75 1.125 0.63 50

3 0 15' LH 5.69 5.625 0.06 50

1 0 52' RH 3.27 3 0.27 505 0 45' RH 4.93 3 1.93 35

23 2 0 00' LH 1.72 0 1.72 35 0.05 7.40

22 1 0 00' RH 1.75 0 1.75 50 0.05 7.30

21 3 0 50' LH 6.71 2.625 4.08 50 0.10 7.20

20 3 0 00' RH 5.25 3.75 1.50 50 0.20 6.60 UG 6.64

19 3 0 08' LH 5.48 4 1.48 50 0.30 6.20 OH 6.25

18 2 0 00' LH 3.50 2.5 1.00 50 0.20 5.80

17 3 0 00' LH 5.25 4.5 0.75 50 0.20 4.80 AG 4.93

16 3 0 00' RH 5.25 4.5 0.75 50 0.20 4.30 OH 4.30, UG 4.36

15 3 0 52' LH 6.77 4 2.77 50 0.15 4.10

14 4 0 30' RH 5.04 3.5 1.54 40 0.10 3.90 UG 3.98

Mer

ritt 7

3 0 07' RH 3.49 3 0.49 40

4 0 30' RH 5.04 3 2.04 40

12 3 0 00' LH 3.36 2 1.36 40 0.10 3.20 UG 3.20

11 4 0 22' RH 4.89 3 1.89 40 0.10 3.10

10 3 0 45' LH 6.56 2 4.56 50 0.20 2.95 AG 2.86

1 0 30' RH 0.95 0.75 0.20 30

1 0 00' RH 0.63 0.75 -0.12 301 0 45' RH 1.10 0.75 0.35 30

8 2 0 30' RH 1.58 2 -0.43 30 0.20 1.70 speed changes in curve

7 5 0 00' LH 2.19 1 1.19 25 0.05 1.50 AG 1.65

9 0 40' LH 4.23 1.50 2.73 25

5 0 00' LH 2.19 1.50 0.69 25

5 4 0 15' RH 1.86 2 -0.14 25 0.10 1.05

3 0 20' LH 2.10 1 1.10 30 0.20

1 0 20' LH 0.84 1 -0.16 30

3 1 0 15' LH 0.79 1 -0.21 30 0.10 0.60 AG 0.64

2 2 0 45' RH 1.73 2.25 -0.52 30 0.30 0.40

1 8 0 20' LH 0.58 2 -1.42 10 0.10 0.00 UG 0.19, UG 0.11

0 10D 45M LH 0.75 3.75 -3.00 10 0.00 Curved Lead of No. 8 Turnout (connection to NHL)

Short Tangents Between Reverse Curves


Short Tangent Between Reverse Curves, OH 7.87, UG 7.65

Reverse Curve

No Tangents Between Reverse Curves, AG 7.32, OH 7.29, UG

7.25

Compound Curve

Compound Curve, AG 1.33

Compound Curve, OH 3.41, AG 3.43

Compound Curve, AG 2.56, AG 2.23

TANGENT TRACK

TANGENT TRACK

7.90

0.35 7.55

Wilt

on

25 0.35

13

24

6

9

0.15

0.80

0.40

4

0.20 1.30

2.40

Compound Curve with Speed Change

in Curve

3.40

Compound Curve, OH 7.87

TABLE SND-2BRIDGES AND MAJOR CULVERTS

ITEM MP LOC. UG/OH DESCRIPTION TYPE COMMENTS1 23.42 UG Still Rv Assumed to be a box culvert2 22.99 UG Still Rv Assumed to be a box culvert3 22.39 UG Still Rv TPG BD Assumed 2 span 4 21.52 UG stream DG OD 1 span5 21.42 UG stream DG OD 1 span6 20.05 UG culvert7 19.64 UG Rt 53 TPG OD 1 span8 17.09 UG stream DG OD 1 span9 16.41 UG stream DG OD 1 span

10 16.21 OH Sympaug Tpk 3 span11 14.80 UG Sympaug Tpk12 14.16 UG Old Redding Rd DG OD 1 span13 12.83 UG culvert14 12.00 UG15 12.17 UG Factory Pond DG OD 1 span16 11.79 OH Rt 10717 11.55 UG Norwalk Rv DG OD18 11.01 UG Old Mill Rd DG OD 2 span19 9.42 UG Norwalk Rv DG OD 4 span20 8.70 UG Norwalk Rv DG OD 1 span21 7.87 OH Rt 7 1 span22 7.29 OH Rt 3323 6.64 UG Norwalk Rv DG OD 1 span24 6.43 UG stream DG OD Assumed 1 span 25 6.25 OH Wolfpit Rd26 4.30 OH Rt 727 3.41 OH Merritt Pkw28 3.20 UG Norwalk Rv TPG OD Assumed 1 span 29 1.56 UG Norwalk Rv TPG BD Assumed 2 span30 1.53 OH Welton Pl31 1.47 OH Wall St tunnel32 0.54 OH I 9533 0.19 UG Anne St DG OD34 0.11 UG Marshall St DG OD

UG: Under Grade OH: Overhead

BD: Ballast Deck DG: Deck GirderOD: Open Deck TPG: Through Plate Girder

Metro North RR - Danbury Br

Inventory from CD video & MNR Track Charts

TABLE SND-3RAILROAD - HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSINGS

ITEM MP LOC. TYPE DESCRIPTION WARNING SYSTEM Track No., Length (ft.)

1 0.64 AG Science F S - 662 0.91 AG Jennings Pvt. F S - 333 1.09 AG Pvt. CS S - 124 1.17 AG Pvt Boat S S - 255 1.31 AG Divine Pvt. S S - 24 6 1.33 AG Commerce F, G S - 1487 1.65 AG Cross St F, G S - 658 2.05 AG Catherine St F, G S - 559 2.23 AG New Canaan Ave F, G S - 5910 2.56 AG Broad St F, G S - 2911 2.88 AG Perry Ave F, G S - 3012 3.43 AG Glover Ave F, G S - 5013 4.93 AG Kent Rd F, G S - 3414 7.30 AG Wilton Station F S - 4015 8.84 AG Cannon Rd F, G S - 3316 9.54 AG Seeley Rd F, G S - 3317 9.90 AG Honey Hill Rd F, G S - 3318 10.85 AG Pvt. S S - 1719 12.01 AG North Main St F S - 4020 12.58 AG Portland Ave F S - 4421 12.74 AG Depot Rd F S & S - 4022 14.95 AG Pvt. S S - 2023 15.08 AG Topstone Rd F S - 4424 16.55 AG Pvt. S S - 3025 16.95 AG Pvt. S S - 2026 17.19 AG Long Ridge Rd F S - 3027 20.44 AG Taylor Ave F, G S - 5128 20.52 AG South St F, G S - 5129 20.62 AG Greenwood Ave F,G S - 7230 21.76 AG Great Pasture F, G S - 3631 22.21 AG Shelter Rock Rd F, G S - 3332 22.57 AG Triangle St F, G S - 6633 22.83 AG Taylor St F, G S - 4234 22.99 AG East Liberty St F, G S - 4235 22.6 AG Station Access F, G S & S - 40

AG: At Grade Track No.:Pvt: Private Crossing S: SingleWarning Systems: S&S: Single & Siding F: Flashing Lights G: Gates S: Signs CS: Cable or Fence

Inventory from CD video & MNR Track Charts

Metro North RR - Danbury Br

TABLE SND - 4

PROPOSED CHANGES TO SUPERELEVATION AND UNDERBALANCE ON SELECT CURVES

12 Proposed changes highlighted in blue34

Sta

tion Curve

No.Degree of Curve


Max. Speed (MPH)

Length (mi)

Location (MP) Comments

62 17 0 RH 1.19 N/A N/A 10 0.25 23.60 No Data for Ea61 2 0 50' RH 0.79 1 -0.21 20 0.20 23.40

3 0 45' LH 2.36 1 1.36 30 Speed incr. from 20 to 30 mph





1 0 33' LH 0.98 1 -0.02 30 Speed incr. from 20 to 30 mph

Bet

hel

50 MPH (no change)

3 0 22' LH 2.12 1.25 0.87 30 Speed decr. from 50 to 30 mph

2 0 52' LH 1.81 1.25 0.56 30 Speed decr. from 50 to 30 mph

1 0 30' LH 0.95 1.25 -0.31 30 No change

1 0 51' LH 1.17 1.25 -0.08 30 No change58 1 0 07' RH 1.25 1 0.25 40 0.10 20.15 Speed incr. from 30 to 40 mph57 1 0 15' RH 3.15 1.5 1.65 60 0.20 19.60 UG 19.64 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph56 3 0 30' LH 8.82 6 2.82 60 0.20 19.20 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph55 0 0 37' RH 1.55 1 0.55 60 0.15 19.00 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph54 3 0 00' RH 7.56 5 2.56 60 0.10 18.70 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph53 2 0 00' LH 5.04 3.5 1.54 60 0.30 18.35 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph

4 0 15' LH 7.44 4.5 2.94 50 No change

3 0 50' LH 6.71 4.5 2.21 50 No change

0 0 45' RH 1.31 4 -2.69 50 No change

4 0 00' RH 7.00 4 3.00 50 No change

1 0 52' LH 3.27 3.5 -0.23 50 No change

3 0 30' LH 6.13 3.5 2.63 50 No change

2 0 00' LH 3.50 3.5 0.00 50 No change

The MP location of the curves was taken at the approximate mid point.Underbalance, Eu, is the difference between equilibrium superelevation (EQ) and actual superelevation (Ea, from the track charts)

Comments on Proposed Improvements

Curve Data Chart: Increase Superelevation and Underbalance to Increase Speeds on Existing CurvesMetro North RR - Danbury BrCurve data from MNR 2003 track chart.Length & location of curves are approximate as they were scaled from the Track Chart.Convention for RH or LH curve is facing RR north.

Dan

bury

60 0.75 22.80Compound Curve 3 AG x-ings, UG

22.94

Proposed Improvements

TANGENT TRACK

59 0.50 20.70

Compound Curve with Speed

Change in Curve, 3 AG x-ings

Rev. Curve




TABLE SND - 4



Sta

tion Curve

No.Degree of Curve


Max. Speed (MPH)

Length (mi)






Red

ding

50MPH

49 3 0 00' LH 5.25 3 2.25 50 0.15 16.90 No change48 3 0 52' RH 6.77 4 2.77 50 0.20 16.70 No change

3 0 57' RH 6.91 4 2.91 50

1 0 19' RH 1.13 4 -2.87 3546 4 0 37' LH 3.96 3 0.96 35 0.15 15.35

45 2 0 00' RH 1.72 1.5 0.22 35 0.15 15.15 No change

3 0 45' RH 3.22 2.5 0.72 35

5 0 00' RH 4.29 2.5 1.79 3543 4 0 00' LH 3.43 2 1.43 35 0.20 14.60

42 3 0 52' LH 6.77 4.5 2.27 50 0.20 14.35 No change41 4 0 12' RH 7.35 4.5 2.85 50 0.10 14.10 No change40 2 0 45' RH 4.81 3 1.81 50 0.10 13.70

39 3 0 52' LH 6.77 4 2.77 50 0.20 13.55

3 0 45' RH 6.56 4 2.56 50 No change

1 0 00' RH 1.75 4 -2.25 50 No change37 1 0 00' LH 1.75 1 0.75 50 0.20 13.10 No change

1 0 00' RH 1.75 4 -2.25 50 No change

3 0 00' RH 5.25 4 1.25 50 No change35 4 0 30' RH 7.88 5 2.88 50 0.15 12.35 No Change

3 0 22' LH 5.89 4.5 1.39 50 No Change

4 0 10' LH 7.29 4.5 2.79 50 No Change Horiz. clearance considerations at OH Bridge 11.79??2 0 00' LH 5.04 5 0.04 60 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph

3 0 15' LH 8.19 5.25 2.94 60 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph Tangent between curves 33 and 32 may not be long enough3 0 30' RH 8.82 6 2.82 60 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph Tangent between curves 33 and 32 may not be long enough2 0 00' RH 5.04 5 0.04 60 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph

31 0 0 45' RH 1.89 0.75 1.14 60 0.20 10.50 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph30 2 0 00' RH 5.04 3.5 1.54 60 0.20 10.05 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph29 3 0 57' LH 8.36 5.5 2.86 55 0.20 9.70 Speed incr. from 50 to 55 mph28 2 0 00' RH 5.04 3.5 1.54 60 0.15 9.40 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph27 2 0 00' LH 5.04 3.5 1.54 60 0.20 9.10 UG 9.42 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph

TANGENT TRACK

47 0.40 15.60Compound with speed change in

curveShort Tangent Between

Reverse Curves

44 0.20 14.80 Compound Curve, UG 14.80 Short Tangent Between

Reverse Curves



Bra

nch-

vi

lle 36 0.20 12.60Compound Curve,

AG 12.74, AG 12.01

34 0.40 11.80 Compound Curve, OH 11.79


32 0.50 11.10 Compound Curve, UG 11.01

TABLE SND - 4



Sta

tion Curve

No.Degree of Curve


Max. Speed (MPH)

Length (mi)






Can

non-

da

le Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph

26 2 0 07' RH 5.33 3.5 1.83 60 0.20 8.50 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph

1 0 00' LH 1.75 1.125 0.63 50 No Chg.

3 0 15' LH 5.69 5.625 0.06 50 No Chg.

1 0 52' RH 3.27 3 0.27 50 No Chg.

5 0 45' RH 4.93 3 1.93 35 No Chg.23 2 0 00' LH 1.72 0 1.72 35 0.05 7.40 No Chg.22 1 0 00' RH 1.75 0 1.75 50 0.05 7.30 No Chg.21 3 0 50' LH 6.71 4 2.71 50 0.10 7.20 No Change20 3 0 00' RH 5.25 3.75 1.50 50 0.20 6.60 UG 6.64 No Change19 3 0 08' LH 7.90 6 1.90 60 0.30 6.20 OH 6.25 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph18 2 0 00' LH 5.04 3.5 1.54 60 0.20 5.80 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph17 3 0 00' LH 7.56 5 2.56 60 0.20 4.80 AG 4.93 Speed incr. from 50 to 60 mph Already 4.5 in. of super. at grade cossing16 3 0 00' RH 5.25 4.5 0.75 50 0.20 4.30 OH 4.30, UG 4.36 No Chg.15 3 0 52' LH 6.77 4 2.77 50 0.15 4.10 No Chg.14 4 0 30' RH 5.04 3.5 1.54 40 0.10 3.90 UG 3.98 No Chg.

Mer

ritt 7

3 0 07' RH 3.49 3 0.49 40 No Change

4 0 30' RH 5.04 3 2.04 40 No Change12 3 0 00' LH 3.36 2 1.36 40 0.10 3.20 UG 3.20 No Change11 4 0 22' RH 4.89 3 1.89 40 0.10 3.10 No Change10 3 0 45' LH 6.56 2 4.56 50 0.20 2.95 AG 2.86 No Change

1 0 30' RH 2.63 0.75 1.88 50 Speed incr. from 40 to 50 mph



8 2 0 30' RH 2.80 2 0.80 40 0.20 1.70 speed changes in curve Speed incr. from 30 to 40 mph

7 5 0 00' LH 5.60 3 2.60 40 0.05 1.50 AG 1.65 Speed incr. from 30 to 40 mph Incr. super. in x-ing from 2 in. to 3 in.

TANGENT TRACK

25 0.35 7.90 Compound Curve, OH 7.87 Short Tangent Between

Reverse Curves, OH 7.87, UG 7.6524 0.35 7.55

Compound Curve with Speed

Change in Curve No Tangents Between Reverse Curves, AG 7.32,

OH 7.29, UG 7.25Wilt

on Reverse Curve


TANGENT TRACK

13 0.15 3.40 Compound Curve, OH 3.41, AG 3.43

9 0.40 2.40 Compound Curve, AG 2.56, AG 2.23

TABLE SND - 4



Sta

tion Curve

No.Degree of Curve


Max. Speed (MPH)

Length (mi)






9 0 40' LH 6.09 4.50 1.59 30

5 0 00' LH 3.15 1.50 1.65 305 4 0 15' RH 2.68 2 0.68 30 0.10 1.05

3 0 20' LH 2.10 1 1.10 30 0.20

1 0 20' LH 0.84 1 -0.16 303 1 0 15' LH 0.79 1 -0.21 30 0.10 0.60 AG 0.64 No Change2 2 0 45' RH 1.73 2.25 -0.52 30 0.30 0.40 No Change1 8 0 20' LH 0.58 2 -1.42 10 0.10 0.00 UG 0.19, UG 0.11 No Change0 10D 45M LH 0.75 3.75 -3.00 10 0.00 Curved Lead of No. 8 Turnout (connection to NHL)

Short Tangents Between Reverse Curves, Incr

spreed from 25 mph to 30 mph throughout curve

4 0.80 Compound Curve

6 0.20 1.30 Compound Curve, AG 1.33


70


Figure DNM-1, Location Map Figure DNM-2, HRRC Track Charts Figure DNM-3, Existing Maximum Allowable Speed with Speed Restrictions Figure DNM-4, Existing Speed vs. Time Figure DNM-5, Proposed Maximum Allowable Speed for 5-Minute




70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

23.3

* NOTE: TRAINS WILL HAVE TO STOP TO MANUALLY OPERATE HAND-THROW SWITCHES

NEW

MIL

FOR

D

9.0

* B

ERK

SHIR

E LI

NE

3.0 4.0

BR

OO

KFI

ELD

1.0

DA

NB

UR

Y N

OR

TH

EXISTING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SPEED, WITH SPEED RESTRICTIONS

FIGURE DNM-3

PASS

ENG

ER

STA

TIO

NS

Spee

d (m

ph)

5.0 6.0 7.0

* M

AYB

RO

OK

LIN

E

2.0

MN

R D

AN

BU

RY

12.0

Milepost

23.9/

77.4

78.0

11.0

79.0

80.0

/ 0.0

10.0

8.0

FIGURE DNM-4EXISTING SPEED VS. TIME

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.00

5.00

10.0

0

15.0

0

20.0

0

25.0

0

30.0

0

35.0

0

40.0

0

45.0

0

TIME IN MINUTES

SPEE

D IN

MPH

DA

NB

UR

Y

MAY

BRO

OK

LIN

E JC

T

BER

KSH

IRE

JCT.

DA

NB

UR

Y N

OR

TH

NE

W M

ILFO

RD

BRO

OKF

IELD

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

23.3


NEW

MIL

FOR

D

* B

ERK

SHIR

E LI

NE

BR

OO

KFI

ELD

1.0

Milepost

23.9/

77.4

78.0

11.0

* M

AYB

RO

OK

LIN

E

2.0

INCREASED SPEED

EXISTING SPEEDINCREASED SPEED DUE TO INCREASING SUPERELEVATION AND UNDERBALANCE.

12.0


79.0

80.0

/ 0.0

3.0 4.0 10.0

8.0 9.0

PASS

ENG

ER

STA

TIO

NS

Spee

d (m

ph)

DA

NB

UR

Y N

OR

TH

FIGURE DNM-5M

NR

DA

NB

UR

Y

5.0 6.0 7.0

FIGURE DNM-6INCREASED SPEED VS. TIME FOR 5-MINUTE REDUCTION

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.00

5.00

10.0

0

15.0

0

20.0

0

25.0

0

30.0

0

35.0

0

40.0

0

TIME IN MINUTES

SPEE

D IN

MPH D

AN

BU

RY

MAY

BRO

OK

LIN

E JC

T

BER

KSH

IRE

JCT

DA

NB

UR

Y N

OR

TH

BRO

OKF

IELD

NE

W M

ILFO

RD

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

23.3


MN

R D

AN

BU

RY

* M

AYB

RO

OK

LIN

E

NEW

MIL

FOR

D

9.0

* B

ERK

SHIR

E LI

NE

3.0 4.0

BR

OO

KFI

ELD

1.0

DA

NB

UR

Y N

OR

TH

INCREASED SPEED DUE TO INCREASING SUPERELEVATION AND UNDERBALANCE.

PASS

ENG

ER

STA

TIO

NS

Spee

d (m

ph)

10.0

5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0

Milepost

23.9/

77.4

78.0

11.0

79.0

80.0

/ 0.0

2.0

EXISTING SPEED

INCREASED SPEED

12.0


FIGURE DNM-7


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.00

5.00

10.0

0

15.0

0

20.0

0

25.0

0

30.0

0

35.0

0

TIME IN MINUTES

SPEE

D IN

MPH D

AN

BU

RY

MAY

BRO

OK

LIN

E JC

T

BER

KSH

IRE

JCT

DA

NB

UR

Y N

OR

TH

BRO

OKF

IELD

NE

W M

ILFO

RD

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

23.3

* NOTE: THIS ALTERNATIVE ASSUMES REMOTE CONTROL, POWER-OPERATED SWITCHES. TRAINS WILL NOT HAVE TO STOP.

FIGURE DNM-9M

NR

DA

NB

UR

Y

* M

AYB

RO

OK

LIN

E

INCREASED SPEED DUE TO INCREASING SUPERELEVATION AND UNDERBALANCE.

12.0

Milepost

23.9/

77.4

78.0

11.0

79.0

80.0

/ 0.0

PASS

ENG

ER

STA

TIO

NS

Spee

d (m

ph)

10.0

5.0 6.0 7.0 8.02.0

INCREASED SPEED

EXISTING SPEED

NEW

MIL

FOR

D

9.0

* B

ERK

SHIR

E LI

NE

3.0 4.0

BR

OO

KFI

ELD

1.0

DA

NB

UR

Y N

OR

TH



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.00

5.00

10.0

0

15.0

0

20.0

0

25.0

0

30.0

0

TIME IN MINUTES

SPEE

D IN

MPH D

AN

BU

RY

MAY

BRO

OK

LIN

E JC

T

SO

UTH

BE

RKS

HIR

E JC

T

DA

NB

UR

Y N

OR

TH

BRO

OKF

IELD

NE

W M

ILFO

RD


71



TABLE DNM-1EXISTING CURVE DATA

1

2

3

4

Sta

tion Curve

No.Degree of Curve

RH / LH Curve Eeq (in.) Ea (in) Eu (in) Max. Speed

(MPH)Length

(mi)Location

(MP) Comments

89 1 0 24' LH 0.88 0 0.88 30 0.05 11.10

88 0 0 34' RH 0.36 0 0.36 30 0.15 10.75

2 0 00' LH 1.26 0 1.26 30

4 0 00' LH 2.52 0 2.52 30

2 0 00' LH 1.26 0 1.26 30

1 0 15' LH 0.79 0 0.79 30

2 0 30' LH 1.58 0 1.58 30

1 0 15' LH 0.79 0 0.79 30

85 2 0 30' RH 1.58 0 1.58 30 0.15 8.50

84 1 0 38' RH 1.03 0 1.03 30 0.10 7.60

83 1 0 25' RH 0.89 0 0.89 30 0.40 7.00

82 2 0 34' LH 1.62 0 1.62 30 0.15 6.20

81 0 0 41' LH 0.43 0 0.43 30 0.1 5.95

80 1 0 46' RH 1.11 0 1.11 30 0.2 5.50

79 1 0 49' LH 1.14 0 1.14 30 0.1 4.95

1 0 15' RH 0.79 0 0.79 30

1 0 00' RH 0.63 0 0.63 30

1 0 00' LH 0.63 0 0.63 30

2 0 00' LH 1.26 0 1.26 30

1 0 00' LH 0.63 0 0.63 30

76 1 0 04' RH 0.67 0 0.67 30 0.05 3.50

0 0 30' LH 0.32 0 0.32 30

1 0 00' LH 0.63 0 0.63 30

0 0 30' LH 0.32 0 0.32 30

1 0 02' LH 0.65 0 0.65 30

1 0 19' LH 0.83 0 0.83 30

73 2 0 00' LH 1.26 0 1.26 30 0.1 2.20

3 0 30' LH 2.21 0 2.21 30

1 0 45' LH 1.10 0 1.10 30

2 0 00' LH 1.26 0 1.26 30

4 0 00' LH 2.52 0 2.52 30

2 0 00' LH 1.26 0 1.26 30

70 2 0 00' LH 1.26 0 1.26 30 0.8 0.80

69 2 0 00' RH 1.26 0 1.26 30 0.4 0.40

68 0 0 40' RH 0.42 0 0.42 30 0.2 0.20

80.00

67 0 0 30' LH 0.22 0 0.22 25 0.2 79.65

66 3 0 00' RH 1.31 1/2 0.81 25 0.2 78.70

65 2 0 57' LH 1.29 1/2 0.79 25 0.2 78.20

4 0 00' LH 1.75 2 -0.25 25 0.1

5 0 00' LH 2.19 2 0.19 25 0.1

63 4 0 00' LH 0.28 1 -0.72 10 0.1 77.20

A63

------

------

------

H

RR

C B

erks

hire

Lin

e -

------

------

---

CP Berkshire Jct ---------- tangent

HR

RC

May

broo

k Li

ne

64 77.70 compound

74 0.1 2.40 compound

Turnout connection between MNR Danbury Branch and Housitonic RR Maybrook Secondary. No data on track charts.

1.70 compound

71 0.15 1.25 compound

72 0.15


77 0.15 3.80 compound

9.00 compound


86 0.20

0.20 10.40 compound87



Underbalance, Eu, is the difference between equilibrium superelevarion, Eeq, and the actual superelevation, Ea. (Ea from the HRRC track charts).

Curve data chartHousatonic RR Co - Danbury to New MilfordInventory from HRRC Track Charts


ITEM MP LOC. UG/OH DESCRIPTION TYPE COMMENTS

1 10.78 UG Butler Brook No bridge data on track charts

2 10.18 UG Housatonic River Thru Truss No bridge data on track charts

3 8.95 UG Still River No bridge data on track charts

4 8.57 OH Lakesville Rd. No bridge data on track charts

5 7.76 OH Erikson Rd No bridge data on track charts

6 6.93 OH Old Punkinhill Rd No bridge data on track charts

7 6.11 UG Old Middle Rd No bridge data on track charts

8 4.30 OH Route 25 No bridge data on track charts

9 3.25 OH Slvermine Rd No bridge data on track charts

10 2.93 UG Farm Pass No bridge data on track charts

11 2.44 UG Center Rd No bridge data on track charts

12 1.59 OH Grays B. Rd No bridge data on track charts

13 1.09 UG Sandhcut Hill Rd No bridge data on track charts

14 79.65 UG Still Rv No bridge data on track charts

15 79.27 OH Interstate 84 No bridge data on track charts

16 78.74 UG Beaver Brook Rd No bridge data on track charts

17 77.84 OH White St No bridge data on track charts

UG: Under Grade

OH: Overhead

ITEM MP LOC TYPE DESCRIPTION WARNING SYSTEM NO. OF TRACKS

1 11.01 AG Bridge St (U.S.202) F, G S

2 10.89 AG Mill St F S

3 10.77 AG South Ave F S

4 9. 81 AG Kimberly Clarke - Pvt. Unkown S & Sdg.

5 9.32 AG Farm - Pvt. Unknown S

6 8.60 AG Laneseller Rd F, G S

7 79.41 AG Eagle Pencil F, G 2

8 77.50 AG Wildman St F, G 2

AG: Grade Crossing F: Flashing Lights S: Single Track

Pvt.: Private Crossing G: Gates

TABLE DNM-2BRIDGES AND MAJOR CULVERTS

HR

RC

M

aybr

ook

Line

HR

RC

Ber

kshi

re L

ine

Housatonic RR Co - Danbury to New MilfordInventory from HRRC Track Charts

HR

RC

Ber

kshi

re L

ine

HR

RC

M

aybr

ook

Line

TABLE DNM-3RAILROAD - HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSINGS

Housatonic RR Co - Danbury to New MilfordInventory from HRRC Track Charts

TABLE DNM-4CURVE DATA CHART: PROPOSED 40 MPH OPERATIONS

12 Proposed Changes3 Highlighted in Blue4

Stat

ion Curve

No.Degree of Curve


(MPH)Length

(mi)Location

(MP) Comments

89 1 0 24' LH 0.10 0 0.10 10 0.05 11.1088 0 0 34' RH 0.04 0 0.04 10 0.15 10.75

2 0 00' LH 2.24 2 0.24 404 0 00' LH 4.48 2 2.48 402 0 00' LH 2.24 2 0.24 401 0 15' LH 1.40 1 0.40 402 0 30' LH 2.80 1 1.80 401 0 15' LH 1.40 1 0.40 40

85 2 0 30' RH 2.80 1.5 1.30 40 0.15 8.5084 1 0 38' RH 1.83 0.5 1.33 40 0.10 7.6083 1 0 25' RH 1.59 0.5 1.09 40 0.40 7.0082 2 0 34' LH 2.87 1.5 1.37 40 0.15 6.2081 0 0 41' LH 0.77 0 0.77 40 0.1 5.9580 1 0 46' RH 1.98 0.5 1.48 40 0.2 5.5079 1 0 49' LH 2.03 0.5 1.53 40 0.1 4.95

1 0 15' RH 1.40 0 1.40 401 0 00' RH 1.12 0 1.12 401 0 00' LH 1.12 0.75 0.37 402 0 00' LH 2.24 0.75 1.49 401 0 00' LH 1.12 0.75 0.37 40

76 1 0 04' RH 1.19 0 1.19 40 0.05 3.500 0 30' LH 0.56 0 0.56 401 0 00' LH 1.12 0 1.12 400 0 30' LH 0.56 0 0.56 401 0 02' LH 1.16 0 1.16 401 0 19' LH 1.47 0 1.47 40

73 2 0 00' LH 2.24 1 1.24 40 0.1 2.203 0 30' LH 3.92 1.5 2.42 401 0 45' LH 1.96 1.5 0.46 402 0 00' LH 2.24 2 0.24 404 0 00' LH 4.48 2 2.48 402 0 00' LH 2.24 2 0.24 40

70 2 0 00' LH 2.24 1 1.24 40 0.8 0.8069 2 0 00' RH 2.24 1 1.24 40 0.4 0.4068 0 0 40' RH 0.75 0 0.75 40 0.2 0.20

80.0067 0 0 30' LH 0.56 0 0.56 40 0.2 79.6566 3 0 00' RH 3.36 2 1.36 40 0.2 78.7065 2 0 57' LH 3.30 2 1.30 40 0.2 78.20 Short tang. btwn Cvs. 65 and 66.

4 0 00' LH 2.52 1.5 1.02 30 0.15 0 00' LH 3.15 1.5 1.65 30 0.1

63 4 0 00' LH 0.28 1 -0.72 10 0.1 77.20

A63

HR

RC

Ber

kshi

re L

ine


HR

RC

May

broo

k Li

ne

64 77.70 compound

compound

0.1 2.40 compound


71 0.15 1.25

72 0.15 1.70 compound

0.2 3.10 compound

77 0.15 3.80 compound

74

0.20 9.00 compound


86

75

87 0.20 10.40 compound

Convention for RH or LH curve is facing RR north.The MP location of the curves was taken at the approximate mid point.Underbalance, Eu, is the difference between equilibrium superelevarion, Eeq, and the actual superelevation, Ea. (Ea from the HRRC track charts).

Curve data chartHousatonic RR Co - Danbury to New MilfordInventory from HRRC Track ChartsLength & location of curves are approximate as they were scaled from the Track Chart.


12 Proposed Changes 3 Highlighted in Blue4

Stat

ion Curve

No.Degree of

CurveRH / LH Curve Eeq (in.) Ea (in) Eu (in) Max. Speed

(MPH)Length

(mi)Location

(MP) Comments

89 1 0 24' LH 0.10 0 0.10 10 0.05 11.1088 0 0 34' RH 0.04 0 0.04 10 0.15 10.75

2 0 00' LH 2.24 2 0.24 404 0 00' LH 4.48 2 2.48 402 0 00' LH 2.24 2 0.24 401 0 15' LH 2.19 1.5 0.69 502 0 30' LH 4.38 1.5 2.88 501 0 15' LH 2.19 1.5 0.69 50

85 2 0 30' RH 4.38 3 1.38 50 0.15 8.5084 1 0 38' RH 2.86 1.5 1.36 50 0.10 7.6083 1 0 25' RH 2.48 1 1.48 50 0.40 7.0082 2 0 34' LH 4.49 3 1.49 50 0.15 6.2081 0 0 41' LH 1.20 0 1.20 50 0.1 5.9580 1 0 46' RH 3.09 2 1.09 50 0.2 5.5079 1 0 49' LH 3.18 1.75 1.43 50 0.1 4.95

1 0 15' RH 2.19 0.75 1.44 501 0 00' RH 1.75 0.75 1.00 501 0 00' LH 1.75 1 0.75 502 0 00' LH 3.50 1 2.50 501 0 00' LH 1.75 1 0.75 50

76 1 0 04' RH 1.87 0.5 1.37 50 0.05 3.500 0 30' LH 0.88 0 0.88 501 0 00' LH 1.75 0 1.75 500 0 30' LH 0.88 0 0.88 501 0 02' LH 1.81 1 0.81 501 0 19' LH 2.30 1 1.30 50

73 2 0 00' LH 3.50 2 1.50 50 0.1 2.203 0 30' LH 6.13 3.25 2.88 501 0 45' LH 3.06 3 0.06 502 0 00' LH 2.24 2 0.24 404 0 00' LH 4.48 2 2.48 402 0 00' LH 2.24 2 0.24 40

70 2 0 00' LH 3.50 2 1.50 50 0.8 0.8069 2 0 00' RH 3.50 2 1.50 50 0.4 0.4068 0 0 40' RH 1.17 0 1.17 50 0.2 0.20

80.0067 0 0 30' LH 0.88 0 0.88 50 0.2 79.6566 3 0 00' RH 5.25 3.75 1.50 50 0.2 78.7065 2 0 57' LH 5.16 3.75 1.41 50 0.2 78.20 Short tang. btwn Cvs. 65 and 66.

4 0 00' LH 2.52 1.5 1.02 30 0.15 0 00' LH 3.15 1.5 1.65 30 0.1

63 4 0 00' LH 0.28 1 -0.72 10 0.1 77.20

A63

HR

RC

Ber

kshi

re L

ine


Curve data chartHousatonic RR Co - Danbury to New MilfordInventory from HRRC Track ChartsLength & location of curves are approximate as they were scaled from the Track Chart.Convention for RH or LH curve is facing RR north.The MP location of the curves was taken at the approximate mid point.Underbalance, Eu, is the difference between equilibrium superelevarion, Eeq, and the actual superelevation, Ea(Ea from the HRRC track charts).

87 0.20 10.40 compound

86 0.20 9.00 compound


77 0.15 3.80 compound



72 0.15 1.70 compound

71 0.15 1.25 compound


HR

RC

May

broo

k Li

ne

64 77.70 compound


12 Proposed Changes 3 Highlighted in Blue4

Stat

ion

Curve No. Degree of Curve


(MPH)Length

(mi)Location

(MP) Comments

89 1 0 24' LH 0.10 0 0.10 10 0.05 11.1088 0 0 34' RH 0.04 0 0.04 10 0.15 10.75

2 0 00' LH 2.24 2 0.24 404 0 00' LH 4.48 2 2.48 402 0 00' LH 2.24 2 0.24 401 0 15' LH 2.19 1.5 0.69 502 0 30' LH 4.38 1.5 2.88 501 0 15' LH 2.19 1.5 0.69 50

85 2 0 30' RH 6.30 4.5 1.80 60 0.15 8.5084 1 0 38' RH 4.12 2.5 1.62 60 0.10 7.6083 1 0 25' RH 3.57 2 1.57 60 0.40 7.0082 2 0 34' LH 6.47 4 2.47 60 0.15 6.2081 0 0 41' LH 1.72 0.5 1.22 60 0.1 5.9580 1 0 46' RH 4.45 3 1.45 60 0.2 5.5079 1 0 49' LH 4.58 3 1.58 60 0.1 4.95

1 0 15' RH 3.15 1.5 1.65 601 0 00' RH 2.52 1.5 1.02 601 0 00' LH 2.52 2 0.52 602 0 00' LH 5.04 2.25 2.79 601 0 00' LH 2.52 2 0.52 60

76 1 0 04' RH 2.69 1.5 1.19 60 0.05 3.500 0 30' LH 1.26 1 0.26 601 0 00' LH 2.52 1 1.52 600 0 30' LH 1.26 1 0.26 601 0 02' LH 2.60 2 0.60 601 0 19' LH 3.32 2 1.32 60

73 2 0 00' LH 5.04 3 2.04 60 0.1 2.203 0 30' LH 6.13 3.25 2.88 501 0 45' LH 3.06 3 0.06 502 0 00' LH 2.24 2 0.24 404 0 00' LH 4.48 2 2.48 402 0 00' LH 2.24 2 0.24 40

70 2 0 00' LH 5.04 3.5 1.54 60 0.8 0.8069 2 0 00' RH 5.04 3.5 1.54 60 0.4 0.4068 0 0 40' RH 1.68 0 1.68 60 0.2 0.20

80.0067 0 0 30' LH 0.88 0 0.88 50 0.2 79.6566 3 0 00' RH 5.25 3.75 1.50 50 0.2 78.7065 2 0 57' LH 5.16 3.75 1.41 50 0.2 78.20 Short tang. btwn Cvs. 65 and 66.

4 0 00' LH 2.52 1.5 1.02 30 0.15 0 00' LH 3.15 1.5 1.65 30 0.1

63 4 0 00' LH 0.28 1 -0.72 10 0.1 77.20

A63

HR

RC

Ber

kshi

re L

ine

Curve data chartHousatonic RR Co - Danbury to New MilfordInventory from HRRC Track ChartsLength & location of curves are approximate as they were scaled from the Track Chart.Convention for RH or LH curve is facing RR north.The MP location of the curves was taken at the approximate mid point.Underbalance, Eu, is the difference between equilibrium superelevarion, Eeq, and the actual superelevation, Ea. (Ea from the HRRC track charts).

87 0.20 10.40 compound

86 0.20 9.00 compound


77 0.15 3.80 compound



72 0.15 1.70 compound

71 0.15 1.25 compound

Turnout connection between MNR Danbury Branch and Housitonic RR Maybrook Line. No data on track charts.


HR

RC

May

broo

k Li

ne

64 77.70 compound


72





APPENDIX A

COST ESTIMATE DETAIL

SOUTH NORWALK - DANBURY

5 min 10 min 15 min No Change (Exist.) 5 min 10 min 15 min 5 min 10 min 15 min 5 min 10 min 15 min

varies to 60 60 60 - 70 varies to 50 varies to 60 60 60 - 70 varies to 60 60 60 - 70 varies to 60 60 60 - 70

0 25,500,000 34,000,000 28,200,000 28,200,000 15,900,000 11,600,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,400,000 2,400,000 2,400,000

0 6,530,000 6,200,000 1,660,000 1,660,000 470,000 470,000 0 0 0 240,000 240,000 0

1,100,000 319,790,525 549,406,634 57,585,774 57,585,774 345,576,991 569,269,463 604,529 604,529 3,204,529 5,791,912 5,791,912 5,791,912

75,000 11,619,000 12,886,000 35,387,000 35,387,000 24,888,000 24,888,000 600,000 750,000 822,000 3,900,000 4,000,000 2,922,000

2,231,646 13,150,828 16,374,924 25,863,649 28,229,639 37,553,820 40,725,570 562,800 562,800 562,800 2,192,624 2,192,624 2,192,624

494,494 5,941,225 6,179,211 3,417,470 3,417,470 5,941,225 6,179,211 3,417,470 5,941,225 6,179,211 3,417,470 5,941,225 6,179,211

0 2,550,000 3,425,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$3,901,140 $385,081,577 $628,471,769 $152,113,893 $154,479,883 $430,330,036 $653,132,244 $5,684,799 $8,358,554 $11,268,540 $17,942,006 $20,565,761 $19,485,747

10% Invest. & Design 390,114 38,508,158 62,847,177 15,211,389 15,447,988 43,033,004 65,313,224 568,480 835,855 1,126,854 1,794,201 2,056,576 1,948,575

15% Const. Management 585,171 57,762,237 94,270,765 22,817,084 23,171,982 64,549,505 97,969,837 852,720 1,253,783 1,690,281 2,691,301 3,084,864 2,922,862

40% Contingency 1,560,456 154,032,631 251,388,707 60,845,557 61,791,953 172,132,014 261,252,898 2,273,920 3,343,422 4,507,416 7,176,802 8,226,304 7,794,299

$6,436,880 $635,384,603 $1,036,978,418 $250,987,923 $254,891,806 $710,044,559 $1,077,668,203 $9,379,918 $13,791,614 $18,593,091 $29,604,310 $33,933,505 $32,151,482

$6M $635M $1.0B $251M $255M $710M $1.1B $9M $14M $19M $30M $34M $32M

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

CONTINGENCY: Includes demolition, environmental mitigation, disposal of hazardous material and unanticipated costs.

The above cost etimates for the double-tracking and passing siding scenarios assumes that the single-track improvements were previously carried out. Therefore, the estimated total cost (2003) to double-track between South Norwalk and Danbury is the cost of single track improvements added to double-track improvements. Similarly, the same method is used to estimate the total cost (2003) to construct passing sidings.

COMMUNICATIONS: Includes installing new fiber optic cable installed along new alignments. Assume cable not required for 5-minute scenarios and passing siding scenarios.

System Improvement

Reduction in Running Time

Max. Allow. Speed

SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS: Includes grading for railroad construction (new alignments), railroad drainage systems, utility relocation, and new stations (Merrit 7 HL plat., new HL plats and ped. bridges for second track, ADA). Parking lots and sitework not included in station estimates.

ROUNDED ESTIMATE

Passing Sidings -- Roll-By

SIGNALS

GRAND TOTAL

R-O-W ACQUISITION

ROADWAY RELOCATION

R-O-W ACQUISITION: Includes the cost to acquire right-of-way for new alignment construction and the cost to widen existing right-of-way for construction of a second main track or passing sidings. Includes the cost to acquire property for a new station site (incl. parking lot) at Wilton.

COMMUNICATIONS

Sub-Total

SIGNALS: Includes installing new wayside and interlocking signals along entire route due to new alignment and higher speeds. Includes modifying crossing starts (railroad - highway grade crossings) on existing track where speeds are increased

NOTES:

INVESTIGATION: Includes survey and mapping, permitting, geotechnical investigation, etc. DESIGN: Includes preliminary and final engineering design, preparation of contract documents, etc.

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT includes on-site inspection, review of shop drawings, review of contractor submittals, review of contractor invoices, final inspection, etc.

TRACK: Includes adjusting superelevation (5-min. scenarios), track and turnout construction (new alignments, double tracking and passing sidings) and constructing new grade crossings (new alignments and double tracking).

ROADWAY RELOCATION: Includes the costs for constructiong portions of U.S. 7 and Sympaugh Turnpike on new alignment due to conflicts with proposed railroad alignments, second main tracks and passing sidings. Includes the cost to realign roadways at new OH bridges.

UG / OH BRIDGES: Includes re-decking of existing open deck bridges due to superelevation changes on existing track. Includes construction of new undergrade and overhead bridges associated with double tracking, new track alignments and passing sidings.

SOUTH NORWALK to DANBURY: Cost Estimate Summary

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT

UG / OH BRIDGES

TRACK

SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS

Passing Sidings -- MeetSingle Track Double Track

South Norwalk to DanburyEstimated Right-of-Way Acquisition Costs

Track Miles of Acres of R-O-W Req'd Track Miles - Widen Acres of R-O-W Req'd Total Acres of R-O-W Estimated Total Cost to Rounded CostSingle Track New Main Line Alignment New Alignment Existing Alignment to Widen Exist. Align. to be Acquired Acquire R-O-W

5 Min. 0 0 0 0 0 -$ -$ 10 Min. 10.2 124 0 0 124 24,727,273$ 24,700,000$ 15 Min. 13.7 166 0 0 166 33,212,121$ 33,200,000$

Double Track

Existing 0 0 23.3 141 141 28,242,424$ 28,200,000$ 5 Min. 0 0 23.3 141 141 28,242,424$ 28,200,000$ 10 Min. 10.2 0 13.1 79 79 15,878,788$ 15,900,000$ 15 Min. 13.7 0 9.5 58 58 11,636,364$ 11,600,000$

Passing Siding - Meet 5 Min. 0 0 0.4 2 2 459,137$ 500,000$ 10 Min. 0 0 0.4 2 2 459,137$ 500,000$ 15 Min. 0 0 0.4 2 2 459,137$ 500,000$

Passing Siding - Roll By

5 Min. 0 0 2.0 12 12 2,424,242$ 2,400,000$ 10 Min. 0 0 2.0 12 12 2,424,242$ 2,400,000$ 15 Min. 0 0 2.0 12 12 2,424,242$ 2,400,000$

Property Acquisition for New Stations:

1 Site(s) (Wilton, due to new realignment required for 10 amd 15-minute reduction in run time) 800,000$ 800,000$

Estimated typical width of right-of-way to be acquired for new alignment (single track + adj. service ro 100 ft.Note: The second main track would be constructed on the adjacent service road.

Estimated width of right-of-way to be acquired to widen the existing single track alignment for a 2nd tr 50 ft.

Estimated cost to acquire right-of-way: 200,000$ per acre

Typical Station Site: Parking Lot, Access Roads, Platform. 400 ft. x 400 ft. = 160,000 sq. ft. 160,000 sq. ft. = 3.7 acres, say 4 acres. 4 acres x $200,000 / acre = 800,000$ per site

South Norwalk to DanburyEstimated Roadway Relocation Costs

Total Esimated CostSingle Track Est. LF of New Constr. Est. Cost Est. LF of New Constr. Est. Cost No. of New OH Bridges Est. Cost Rounded

5 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ 10 Min. 3500 3,314,394$ 5600 1,325,758$ 8 1,893,939$ 6,530,000$ 15 Min. 3500 3,314,394$ 3200 757,576$ 9 2,130,682$ 6,200,000$

Double Track

Existing 0 -$ 0 -$ 7 1,657,197$ 1,660,000$ 5 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 7 1,657,197$ 1,660,000$ 10 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 2 473,485$ 470,000$ 15 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 2 473,485$ 470,000$

Passing Siding - Meet 5 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ 10 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ 15 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$


5 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 236,742$ 240,000$ 10 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 236,742$ 240,000$ 15 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$

Estimated unit cost to construct new 4 lane U.S. 7: 5,000,000$ per mile

Estimated unit cost to construct local , 2 lane roadway: 1,250,000$ per mile

Estimated LF of roadway realignment at new OH bridges: 1000 LF

Realign Roadway Approaches to New OH BridgesRelocate Local StreetsRelocate U.S. 7

12345 80% rock and 20%6 $80 $15789

10

Depth of Width at Area of Volume of Depth of Area of Volume of Height of Area of Volume ofSoil excav top of Cut Soil excav Soil excav rock excav rock excav Rock excav Embank. Embank. Embank.

(miles) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sf) (cy) (ft) (sf) (cy) (ft) (ft) (cy)1 0.90 0 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 152 1.20 1,584 40 50 10 10 76 760 22,293 0 15 8803 1.70 2,640 50 50 0 10 56 560 64,533 0 15 1,46745 2.90 0 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 156 3.10 1,056 60 70 10 10 76 760 14,862 0 15 5877 3.20 528 60 60 0 10 56 560 12,907 0 15 29389 3.80 0 110 110 0 10 56 560 0 0 15 0

10 3.95 792 10 10 76 760 19,360 0 15 44011 4.10 792 110 130 20 10 96 960 25,227 10 675 10,12012 4.25 792 10 10 76 760 25,227 0 15 10,12013 4.40 792 110 110 0 10 56 560 19,360 0 15 4401415 7.20 0 190 190 0 10 56 560 0 0 15 016 7.26 297 10 10 76 760 7,260 0 15 16517 7.50 1,287 197 250 53 10 163 1,627 56,880 43 4,319 103,29118 7.99 2,574 10 10 76 760 113,760 0 15 206,58319 8.10 594 210 210 0 10 56 560 14,521 0 15 3302021 9.30 260 260 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 022 9.70 2,112 265 240 -25 0 25 2,250 88,00023 10.10 2,112 270 270 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 88,0002425 Area A26 13.00 0 400 400 0 0 0 0 - 0 1527 13.06 330 - - 10 10 76 760 4,644 0 15 18328 13.50 2,310 420 500 80 10 216 2,160 124,911 70 8,835 378,58329 13.94 10 10 76 760 0 0 15 030 14.00 2,640 435 435 0 10 56 560 64,533 0 15 1,46731 14.25 3,960 444 450 6 10 68 680 90,933 0 15 2,20032 14.30 10 10 76 760 0 0 15 033 14.60 3,168 457 490 33 10 123 1,228 116,629 23 1,873 110,76034 14.88 10 10 76 760 0 0 15 035 15.00 3,960 471 471 0 10 56 560 96,800 0 15 2,20036 15.20 3,168 - 520 0 10 56 560 65,707 0 15 1,760 0 037 15.50 1,584 450 450 0 10 56 560 32,853 0 15 880 0 0 03839 Area B40 16.60 0 430 430 0 0 0 0 0 1541 16.75 792 430 450 20 10 96 960 14,080 10 675 10,12042 16.90 792 430 430 0 0 0 14,080 0 15 10,1204344 Area C45 17.30 0 380 380 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 046 17.70 2,112 390 440 50 10 156 1,560 61,013 40 3,855 151,36047 17.91 1,131 0 0 048 18.00 453 420 400 -20 20 1,600 13,41049 18.08 406 0 0 0 12,03450 18.50 2,640 420 530 110 10 276 2,760 134,933 100 15,615 763,40051 19.00 2,640 400 400 0 0 0 0 134,933 0 15 764,13352 19.50 2,640 390 390 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1,46753 20.00 2,640 370 450 80 10 216 2,160 105,600 70 8,835 432,66754 20.50 2,640 380 380 0 0 0 0 105,600 0 15 432,6675556 22.50 0 360 360 0 10 56 560 0 0 15 057 22.66 825 10 10 76 760 20,167 0 15 45858 23.00 1,815 368 400 32 10 120 1,200 65,878 22 1,731 58,68559 23.34 1,815 10 10 76 760 65,878 0 15 58,68560 23.50 825 376 376 0 10 56 560 20,167 0 15 458616263 totals: 1,735,530 3,516,970 201,44464 $307,390,525

Following discussions with Gannett Fleming Geotechnical department it was agreed to assume 10' of soil over rock; the rock would be benched resulting in an equivilant cut slope of 1:1.

Excavation will be rippable materials.

Alignment based on Gannett Fleming design superimposed on USGS mapping.Height of Cut/Fill determined from USGS mapping (Bethel, Conn 1984).

Cut section assumes 1:1 slopes beginning 4' from center of trackside ditch.

Existing ground elev

It is assumed that rock excavation would involve blasting. Excavated rock assumed to be hauled off-site and spoiled.Fill section assumes 2:1 side slopes beginning 20' from centerline of track.Cost of excavation includes embankment construction. It is assumed that the unclassified (earth) excavation is suitable for use as fill material and that borrow material will not be required for embankment construction.

South Norwalk to Danbury - Blue Alignment (10-Minute Reduction in Running Time): Estimated Grading Costs for New Track Construction (Single Track)

Typical section based on MBTA Typical Roadbed Section - two track on tangent (single-track and adjacent maintenance access road)..

cost of excavation =

Height of cut

Rock excavation per CY: Earth excavation per CY:

Assumptions:

Mile Post locations

Dist bet locations

Existing subgrade

elev

12

3456 80% rock and 20%7 $80 $158

9

10111213

(miles) (ft) (ft) (cy) (ft) (cy) (ft) (cy) (ft) (cy)0.10 2 2 17 170.90 4224 2 3,129 2 3,129 2 14,862 2 14,862

Realignment Area1.70 2 2 2 21.80 528 2 391 7 880 2 391 2 3911.90 528 7 880 7 1,369 2 391 2 3912.00 528 2 880 2 880 2 391 2 3912.10 528 7 880 7 880 2 391 2 3912.20 528 7 1,369 7 1,369 2 391 2 3912.50 1584 7 4,107 2 2,640 2 1,173 2 1,1732.80 1584 7 4,107 2 1,173 2 1,173 2 1,1732.90 528 2 880 2 391 2 391 2 391

Realignment Area3.20 2 2 2 23.30 528 2 391 7 880 17 1,858 2 3913.45 792 2 587 7 2,053 2 2,787 2 5873.60 792 2 587 7 2,053 2 587 2 5873.70 528 2 391 2 880 2 391 2 3913.80 528 7 880 2 391 2 391 2 391

Realignment Area4.40 7 7 2 24.70 1584 2 2,640 2 2,640 7 2,640 7 2,6404.80 528 7 880 2 391 2 880 12 1,8584.90 528 2 880 2 391 7 880 2 1,3695.00 528 2 391 2 391 2 880 2 3915.40 2112 2 1,564 2 1,564 17 7,431 2 1,5645.60 1056 7 1,760 7 1,760 2 3,716 2 7825.80 1056 2 1,760 2 1,760 7 1,760 7 1,7606.00 1056 2 782 2 782 7 2,738 2 1,7606.10 528 2 391 2 391 7 1,369 2 3916.20 528 7 880 7 880 2 880 2 3916.30 528 2 880 2 880 7 880 2 3916.40 528 2 391 2 391 2 880 2 3916.50 528 2 391 2 391 17 1,858 17 1,8586.60 528 2 391 2 391 2 1,858 2 1,8586.90 1584 2 1,173 2 1,173 2 1,173 2 1,1737.10 1056 17 3,716 2 782 2 782 2 7827.20 528 2 1,858 2 391 2 391 2 391

Realignment Area8.10 7 7 2 29.30 6336 2 10,560 2 10,560 17 22,293 5 8,213

Realignment Area10.10 7 7 2 210.85 3960 2 6,600 2 6,600 2 2,933 2 2,93311.40 2904 7 4,840 2 2,151 2 2,151 7 4,84011.50 528 7 1,369 7 880 2 391 2 88011.55 264 2 440 2 440 7 440 7 44011.80 1320 2 978 7 2,200 7 3,422 2 2,20011.90 528 2 391 2 880 7 1,369 2 39112.00 528 2 391 2 391 2 880 2 39112.10 528 2 391 2 391 2 391 2 39112.20 528 7 880 7 880 2 391 2 39112.30 528 2 880 2 880 7 880 7 88012.45 792 7 1,320 7 1,320 2 1,320 2 1,32012.58 686.4 4 1,398 2 1,144 2 508 2 50812.74 844.8 2 939 2 626 2 626 2 62612.80 316.8 7 528 2 235 2 235 12 82113.00 1056 7 2,738 2 782 2 782 12 4,693

Realignment Area15.50 2 2 2 216.00 2640 2 1,956 2 1,956 2 1,956 2 1,95616.21 1108.8 2 821 2 821 2 821 2 82116.60 2059.2 2 1,525 2 1,525 7 3,432 7 3,432

Realignment Area20.50 2 2 2 220.60 528 2 391 2 391 2 391 2 39121.00 2112 2 1,564 2 1,564 5 2,738 5 2,73821.50 2640 2 1,956 2 1,956 5 4,889 5 4,88922.40 4752 2 3,520 2 3,520 5 8,800 2 6,16022.50 528 2 391 2 391 2 684 2 39123.50 5280 1,956 1,956 1,956 1,956

totals 88,909 78,760 121,244 94,307

$10,730,837 Vol. of Rock Excavation (unadjusted): 134,135 CY

$503,008 Vol. of Unclassified Excavation (unadjusted): 33,534 CY

Cost of Borrow Excavation = $6,552,621 Vol. of Borrow Material Required (est): 218,421 CY

Borrow material will be required for embankment construction. Estimated volume includes a swell/shrinkage factor of 20%.

This estimate is based on widening cuts and fills on those portions of the Danbury Branch where the current alignment will be retained. At locations where a new alignment is constructed, it is assumed that the earthwork construction included provision of a railroad maintenance and access road built adjacent to the new main track. The service road will be used as the roadbed for the second track in these "realignment areas."

It is assumed that rock excavation would involve blasting. Excavated rock is assumed to be hauled off-site and spoiled.

Rock excavation per CY: Earth excavation per CY:

Cutting is assumed to be preferred over Filling.It is assumed that existing 2 track areas will be salvaged and will not require additional widening.

Fill section assumes 2:1 side slopes beginning 20' from centerline of track.

Cut section assumes 1:1 side slopes beginning 4' from center of trackside ditch.

From observing video, in cut sections, it is assumed that all excavation would be rock, in at grade or fill sections, it is assumed that 2' of existing ground would be removed.

Right fill volume

Cost of Unclassified Excavation =

Left cut Right cut Right cut volume Left fill Left fill

volume Right fill

Cost of Rock Excavation =

Distance between

MPs

South Norwalk to Danbury - Blue Alignment (10-Minute Reduction in Running Time): Estimated Grading Costs to Construct Second Track

Excavation will be: rippable materials.

Left cut volume

Assumptions:Alignment based on Gannett Fleming design superimposed on USGS mapping.

Mile Post locations

Height of Cut/Fill determined from reviewing "Video of Southbound View (Filmed 06-28-01)."Typical section based on MBTA Typical Roadbed Section - Two Track on Tangent.

12345 80% rock and 20%6 $80 $15789

10

Depth of Width at Area of Volume of Depth of Area of Volume of Height of Area of Volume ofSoil excav top of Cut Soil excav Soil excav rock excav rock excav Rock excav Embank. Embank. Embank.

(miles) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (sf) (cy) (ft) (sf) (cy) (ft) (ft) (cy)1 0.90 0 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 152 1.20 1,584 40 50 10 10 76 760 22,293 0 15 8803 1.70 2,640 50 50 0 10 56 560 64,533 0 15 1,46745 2.90 0 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 156 3.10 1,056 60 70 10 10 76 760 14,862 0 15 5877 3.20 528 60 60 0 10 56 560 12,907 0 15 29389 3.80 0 110 110 0 10 56 560 0 0 15 0

10 3.95 792 10 10 76 760 19,360 0 15 44011 4.10 792 110 130 20 10 96 960 25,227 10 675 10,12012 4.25 792 10 10 76 760 25,227 0 15 10,12013 4.40 792 110 110 0 10 56 560 19,360 0 15 4401415 7.20 0 190 190 0 10 56 560 0 0 15 016 7.26 297 10 10 76 760 7,260 0 15 16517 7.50 1,287 197 250 53 10 163 1,627 56,880 43 4,319 103,29118 7.99 2,574 10 10 76 760 113,760 0 15 206,58319 8.10 594 210 210 0 10 56 560 14,521 0 15 3302021 Area A22 13.00 0 400 400 0 0 0 0 - 0 023 13.06 330 10 10 76 760 4644 0 15 9224 13.50 2,310 420 500 80 10 216 2160 124911 70 8835 37858325 13.94 2,310 10 10 76 760 124911 0 15 37858326 14.00 330 435 460 25 10 106 1060 19678 15 1080 6059227 14.50 2,640 450 460 10 10 76 760 88978 0 15 5353328 14.74 1,257 0 0 0 0 17686 0 0 349 0 029 15.00 1,383 471 460 -11 0 11 682 1747130 15.03 180 - - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 227831 15.07 164 - - 10 10 76 760 2308 0 15 4632 15.50 2,296 450 600 150 10 356 3560 183652 140 27455 116780733 15.97 2,464 - - 10 10 76 760 197134 0 15 125353534 16.00 176 450 450 0 0 0 2475 0 0 493536 Area B37 16.60 0 430 430 0 0 0 0 0 038 16.75 792 430 450 20 10 96 960 14080 10 675 990039 16.90 792 430 430 0 0 0 14080 0 0 99004041 Area C42 17.30 0 380 380 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 043 17.70 2112 390 440 50 10 156 1560 61013 40 3855 15136044 17.91 1131 0 0 045 18.00 453 420 400 -20 20 1600 1341046 18.08 406 0 0 0 1203447 18.50 2640 420 530 110 10 276 2760 134,933 100 15615 76340048 19.00 2640 400 400 0 0 0 0 134,933 0 15 76413349 19.50 2640 390 390 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 146750 20.00 2640 370 450 80 10 216 2160 105,600 70 8835 43266751 20.50 2640 380 380 0 0 0 0 105,600 0 15 4326675253 22.50 0 360 360 0 10 56 560 0 0 15 054 22.66 825 10 10 76 760 20,167 0 15 45855 23.00 1,815 368 400 32 10 120 1,200 65,878 22 1,731 58,68556 23.34 1,815 10 10 76 760 65,878 0 15 58,68557 23.50 825 376 376 0 10 56 560 20,167 0 15 4585859 totals: 1,904,895 6,311,665 45,193

$533,506,634

Cut section assumes 1:1 side slopes beginning 4' from center of trackside ditch.

Following discussions with Gannett Fleming Geotechnical department it was agreed to assume 10' of soil over rock; the rock would be benched resulting in an equivilant cut slope of 1:1.

Cost of excavation includes embankment construction. It is assumed that the unclassified (earth) excavation is suitable for use as fill material and that borrow material will not be required for embankment construction.

Rock excavation per CY: Earth excavation per CY:Excavation will be rippable materials.

Dist bet locations

Existing subgrade

elev

Existing ground elev


South Norwalk to Danbury - Green Alignment (15-Minute Reduction in Running Time): Estimated Grading Costs for New Track Construction (Single Track)

Typical section based on MBTA Typical Roadbed Section - Two Track on Tangent (single-track and adjacent maintenance road access)

cost of rock excavation =

Assumptions:

Height of Cut/Fill determined from USGS mapping (Bethel, Conn 1984)Alignment based on Gannett Fleming design superimposed on USGS mapping.

Height of cut

Fill section assumes 2:1 side slopes beginning 20' from centerline of track.

Mile Post locations

12

3456 80% rock and 20%7 $80 $158

910111213

Distance Left Left Cut Right Right Cut Left Left Fill Right Right Fillbetween Cut Volume Cut Volume Fill Volume Fill Volume

(miles) (ft) (ft) (cy) (ft) (cy) (ft) (cy) (ft) (cy)0.10 2 2 17 170.90 4224 2 3,129 2 3,129 2 14,862 2 14,862

Realignment Area1.70 2 2 2 21.80 528 2 391 7 880 2 391 2 3911.90 528 7 880 7 1,369 2 391 2 3912.00 528 2 880 2 880 2 391 2 3912.10 528 7 880 7 880 2 391 2 3912.20 528 7 1,369 7 1,369 2 391 2 3912.50 1584 7 4,107 2 2,640 2 1,173 2 1,1732.80 1584 7 4,107 2 1,173 2 1,173 2 1,1732.90 528 2 880 2 391 2 391 2 391

Realignment Area3.20 2 2 2 23.30 528 2 391 7 880 17 1,858 2 3913.45 792 2 587 7 2,053 2 2,787 2 5873.60 792 2 587 7 2,053 2 587 2 5873.70 528 2 391 2 880 2 391 2 3913.80 528 7 880 2 391 2 391 2 391

Realignment Area4.40 7 7 2 24.70 1584 2 2,640 2 2,640 7 2,640 7 2,6404.80 528 7 880 2 391 2 880 12 1,8584.90 528 2 880 2 391 7 880 2 1,3695.00 528 2 391 2 391 2 880 2 3915.40 2112 2 1,564 2 1,564 17 7,431 2 1,5645.60 1056 7 1,760 7 1,760 2 3,716 2 7825.80 1056 2 1,760 2 1,760 7 1,760 7 1,7606.00 1056 2 782 2 782 7 2,738 2 1,7606.10 528 2 391 2 391 7 1,369 2 3916.20 528 7 880 7 880 2 880 2 3916.30 528 2 880 2 880 7 880 2 3916.40 528 2 391 2 391 2 880 2 3916.50 528 2 391 2 391 17 1,858 17 1,8586.60 528 2 391 2 391 2 1,858 2 1,8586.90 1584 2 1,173 2 1,173 2 1,173 2 1,1737.10 1056 17 3,716 2 782 2 782 2 7827.20 528 2 1,858 2 391 2 391 2 391

Realignment Area10.10 7 7 2 210.85 3960 2 6,600 2 6,600 2 2,933 2 2,93311.40 2904 7 4,840 2 2,151 2 2,151 7 4,84011.50 528 7 1,369 7 880 2 391 2 88011.55 264 2 440 2 440 7 440 7 44011.80 1320 2 978 7 2,200 7 3,422 2 2,20011.90 528 2 391 2 880 7 1,369 2 39112.00 528 2 391 2 391 2 880 2 39112.10 528 2 391 2 391 2 391 2 39112.20 528 7 880 7 880 2 391 2 39112.30 528 2 880 2 880 7 880 7 88012.45 792 7 1,320 7 1,320 2 1,320 2 1,32012.58 686.4 4 1,398 2 1,144 2 508 2 50812.74 844.8 2 939 2 626 2 626 2 62612.80 316.8 7 528 2 235 2 235 12 82113.00 1056 7 2,738 2 782 2 782 12 4,693

Realignment Area16.00 2 2 2 216.60 3168 2 2,347 2 2,347 12 8,213 12 8,213

Realignment Area16.90 2 2 7 717.19 1531.2 2 1,134 2 1,134 2 2,552 2 2,55217.30 580.8 2 430 2 430 2 430 2 430

Realignment Area20.50 2 2 2 220.60 528 2 391 2 391 2 391 2 39121.00 2112 2 1,564 2 1,564 5 2,738 5 2,73821.50 2640 2 1,956 2 1,956 5 4,889 5 4,88922.40 4752 2 3,520 2 3,520 5 8,800 2 6,16022.50 528 2 391 2 391 2 684 2 391

Realignment Areatotals: 76,003 65,853 101,982 89,124

$9,078,784 113,485 CY

$425,568 28,371 CY

$5,858,477 195,283 CY

Mile Post locations

Borrow material will be required for embankment construction. Estimated volume includes a swell/shrinkage factor of 20%.

Cost of Borrow Excavation =

Vol. of Rock Excavation (unadjusted):

Vol. of Unclassified Excavation (unadjusted):

Vol. of Borrow Material Required (est):




Cut section assumes 1:1 slopes beginning 4' from center of trackside ditch.

It is assumed that existing 2 track areas will be salvaged and will not require additional widening.

From observing video, in cut sections, it is assumed that all excavation would be rock, in at grade or fill sections, it is assumed that 2' of existing ground would be removed.

Excavation will be rippable materials.Rock excavation per CY Earth excavation per CY

Fill section assumes 2:1 slopes beginning 20' from centerline of track.Cutting is assumed to be preferred over Filling.

South Norwalk to Danbury - Green Alignment (15-Minute Reduction in Running Time): Estimated Grading Costs to Construct Second Track

Alignment based on Gannett Fleming design superimposed on USGS mapping.

Height of Cut/Fill determined from reviewing "Video of Southbound View (Filmed 06-28-01)."Typical section based on MBTA Typical Roadbed Section - Two Track on Tangent.

This estimate is based on widening cuts and fills on those portions of the Danbury Branch where the current alignment will be retained. At locations where a new alignment is constructed, it is assumed that the earthwork construction included provision of a railroad maintenance and access road built adjacent to the new main track. The service road will be used as the roadbed for the second track in thes "realignment areas."

Assumptions:

Item MP Loc. UG/OH Description Type Comments 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15

1 23.42 UG Still Rv Assumed box culvert 0 2 2 0, 2 3 32 22.99 UG Still Rv Assumed box culvert 0 2 2 0, 2 3 33 22.39 UG Still Rv TPG BD Assumed 2 span 0 0 0 0, 2 0, 2 0, 24 21.52 UG stream DG OD 1 span 0 0 0 0, 2 0, 2 0, 25 21.42 UG stream DG OD 1 span 0 0 0 0, 2 0, 2 0, 26 20.05 UG culvert7 19.64 UG Rt 53 TPG OD 1 span 0 0 5 0, 2 0, 2 58 17.09 UG stream DG OD 1 span 0 0 0 0, 2 0, 2 0, 29 16.41 UG stream DG OD 1 span 0 0 0 0, 2 0, 2 0, 2

10 16.21 OH Sympaug Tpk 3 span 0 0 0 5 5 511 14.80 UG Sympaug Tpk 0 5 5 0, 2 5 512 14.16 UG Old Redding Rd DG OD 1 span 0 5 5 0, 2 5 513 12.83 UG culvert1415 12.17 UG factory pond DG OD 1 span 0 0 0 0, 2 0, 2 0, 2 2 216 11.79 OH Rt 107 0 5 5 5 5 5 517 11.55 UG Norwalk Rv DG OD 1 1 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 218 11.01 UG Old Mill Rd DG OD 2 span 0 1 1 1, 2 1, 2 1, 219 9.42 UG Norwalk Rv DG OD 4 span 0 0 2 0, 2 0, 2 3 220 8.70 UG Norwalk Rv DG OD 1 span 0 0 0 0, 2 0, 2 0, 2 2 221 7.87 OH Rt 7 1 span 0 5 5 5 5 5 522 7.29 OH Rt 33 0 5 5 5 5 523 6.64 UG Norwalk Rv DG OD 1 span 0 2 2 0, 2 3 324 6.43 UG stream DG OD Assumed 1 span 0 0 0 0, 2 0, 2 0, 225 6.25 OH Wolfpit Rd 0 5 5 5 5 526 4.30 OH Rt 7 0 0 0 5 5 527 3.41 OH Merritt Pkw 0 4 4 4 4 428 3.20 UG Norwalk Rv TP OD Assumed 1 span 0 2 2 0, 2 3 329 1.56 UG Norwalk Rv TP BD Assumed 2 span 0 2 2 0, 2 3 330 1.53 OH Welton Pl 0 5 5 5 5 531 1.47 OH Wall St tunnel 0 6, 5 6, 5 7 6, 5 6, 532 0.54 OH I 95 0 4 4 4 4 433 0.19 UG Anne St DG OD 0 2 2 0, 2 3 334 0.11 UG Marshall St DG OD 0 2 2 0, 2 3 3

SUMMARY: No. of Locations Requiring:

1 2 1 2 2 2 - - - - - - 2 Construct new single track UG bridge. - 7 9 21 12 10 1 - - 2 2 1 3 Construct new 2-track UG bridge - - - - 7 8 - - - - - - 4 Modify abutments and / or piers at overhead bridge - 2 2 2 2 2 - - - - - - 5 Construct new OH bridge over RR (assume spans 2 tracks) - 8 9 7 10 11 - - - 1 1 - 6 N/A - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 Widen Wall St. Tunnel for second track - - - 1 - - - - - - - -

Codes: Assumed Siding Locations (Mid-Point of Sidings), per Stingline Figs. SNNM - 1 thru 3

0. No change to the existing UG or OH bridge. 1. 5-Min. Reduction: MP 7.5, MP 9.5, say one siding at MP 8.51. Adjust superelevation on existing open-deck bridge (new bridge timbers for add'l superelevation). Meet: MP 8.3 - MP 8.72. Construct new UG bridge on new alignment (bridge on new single track or separate bridge for new 2nd main track). Roll - By: MP 7.5 - MP 9.5 3. Construct new UG bridge on new alignment (2-track bridge) 2. 10-Min. Reduction: MP 12.0, MP 13.0, say one siding at MP 12.54. Modify substructure (abutments and / or piers) of existing OH bridge. Meet: MP 12.3 - MP 12.75. Construct new OH bridge (over single track RR with service road - or - over double track RR) Roll - By: MP 11.5 - MP 13.5 6. Assume new alignment built in cut with new Wall St. OH bridge. Wall St. Tunnel abandoned and sealed. 3. 15-Min. Reduction: MP 11.5, MP 14.0, say on siding at MP 12.87. Widen existing Wall St. tunnel for 2nd track. Meet: MP 12.6 - MP 13.0

Roll - By: MP 11.8 - MP 13.8

Passing Sidings - Roll By

1 Adjust superelevation on existing open deck bridge

inventory from CD video & track chart Single Track Double Track Passing Sidings - Meets

Bridges & Major Culverts South Norwalk to Danbury

Metro North RR - Danbury Br Proposed Reduction in Running Time (minutes)

ITEM MP LOC. UG/OH DESCRIPTION TYPE COMMENTS Single Double Single Double Single Double Meet Roll - By Meet Roll - By Meet Roll - By1 23.42 UG Still Rv Assumed to be a box culvert 0 48,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 0 0 0 0 0 02 22.99 UG Still Rv Assumed to be a box culvert 0 48,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 72,000 0 0 0 0 0 03 22.39 UG Still Rv TPG BD Assumed 2 span 0 600,000 0 900,000 0 900,000 0 0 0 0 0 04 21.52 UG stream DG OD 1 span 0 600,000 0 600,000 0 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 05 21.42 UG stream DG OD 1 span 0 600,000 0 600,000 0 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 06 20.05 UG culvert 0 48,000 0 72,000 72,000 72,000 0 0 0 0 0 07 19.64 UG Rt 53 TPG OD 1 span 0 600,000 0 900,000 900,000 900,000 0 0 0 0 0 08 17.09 UG stream DG OD 1 span 0 600,000 0 600,000 0 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 09 16.41 UG stream DG OD 1 span 0 600,000 0 600,000 0 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 16.21 OH Sympaug Tpk 3 span 0 2,250,000 0 2,250,000 0 2,250,000 0 0 0 0 0 011 14.80 UG Sympaug Tpk 0 600,000 600,000 900,000 600,000 900,000 0 0 0 0 0 012 14.16 UG Old Redding Rd DG OD 1 span 0 600,000 600,000 900,000 600,000 900,000 0 0 0 0 0 013 12.83 UG culvert 0 48,000 0 72,000 0 72,000 0 0 0 0 72,000 72,000

12.74 AG Depot Rd. Grade Sep. Exist. AG X-ing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 750,000 750,00014 12.58 AG Portland Ave. Grade Sep. Exist. AG X-ing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 750,000 0 750,00015 12.17 UG Factory Pond DG OD 1 span 0 600,000 400,000 600,000 400,000 600,000 0 0 0 600,000 0 600,000

12.01 AG North Main St. Grade Sep. Exist. AG X-ing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 0 750,00016 11.79 OH Rt 107 0 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 0 0 0 750,000 0 017 11.55 UG Norwalk Rv DG OD 75,000 475,000 75,000 430,000 400,000 430,000 0 0 0 400,000 0 018 11.01 UG Old Mill Rd DG OD 2 span 0 620,000 50,000 620,000 20,000 620,000 0 0 0 0 0 019 9.42 UG Norwalk Rv DG OD 4 span 0 1,800,000 900,000 1,800,000 900,000 1,800,000 0 1,800,000 0 0 0 0

8.84 AG Cannon Rd. Grade Sep. Exist. AG X-ing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 0 0 0 020 8.70 UG Norwalk Rv DG OD 1 span 0 600,000 400,000 600,000 400,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 0 0 0 021 7.87 OH Rt 7 1 span 0 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 0 750,000 0 0 0 022 7.29 OH Rt 33 0 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 023 6.64 UG Norwalk Rv DG OD 1 span 0 400,000 400,000 600,000 400,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 024 6.43 UG stream DG OD Assumed 1 span 0 600,000 400,000 600,000 400,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 025 6.25 OH Wolfpit Rd 0 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 026 4.30 OH Rt 7 0 750,000 0 750,000 0 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 027 3.41 OH Merritt Pkw 0 600,000 400,000 600,000 400,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 028 3.20 UG Norwalk Rv TPG OD Assumed 1 span 0 400,000 400,000 600,000 400,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 029 1.56 UG Norwalk Rv TPG BD Assumed 2 span 0 750,000 750,000 1,500,000 750,000 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 030 1.53 OH Welton Pl 0 750,000 0 750,000 0 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 031 1.47 OH Wall St tunnel 0 15,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 032 0.54 OH I 95 0 600,000 400,000 600,000 400,000 600,000 0 0 0 0 0 033 0.19 UG Anne St DG OD 0 600,000 600,000 900,000 600,000 900,000 0 0 0 0 0 034 0.11 UG Marshall St DG OD 0 600,000 600,000 900,000 600,000 900,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

Totals $75,000 $35,387,000 $11,619,000 $24,888,000 $12,886,000 $24,888,000 $600,000 $3,900,000 $750,000 $4,000,000 $822,000 $2,922,000

Red Alignment

5-Min. Reduction

South Norwalk to Danbury Estimated UG / OH Bridge Costs

Blue Alignment Green Alignment

10-Min. Reduction 15-min. Reduction

Red Alignment Blue Alignment Green Alignment

5-Min. Reduction 10-Min. Reduction 15-min. Reduction

2,600 cost per TF

Labor cost per shift 12,000 4.62Equip cost per shift 8,500 3.27Ballast cost per NT 15.00 7.50

total 15.38

assume that there are 15 TOs 15LF of switch timber in #15 = 439

53,906 TF

34 EA

72,353 TF

34 EA

30,624 TFSuperelevate certain existing curves (5.8 TM per Table SND-4)

Cut & throw existing track to new construction - Green Alignment:

Turnouts:

South Norwalk to Danbury: Estimated Trackwork QuantitiesTrack S/L/R (surface, line, regulate):

gang's surfacing production per shift

Construction of New Single Track - Blue Alignment:

Construction of New Single Track - Green Alignment:

Cut & throw existing track to new construction - Blue Alignment:

1 0.64 AG Science F S - 662 0.91 AG Jennings Pvt. F S - 333 1.09 AG Pvt. CS S - 12 x x x x4 1.17 AG Pvt Boat S S - 25 x x x x5 1.31 AG Divine Pvt. S S - 24 6 1.33 AG Commerce F, G S - 1487 1.65 AG Cross St F, G S - 658 2.05 AG Catherine St F, G S - 559 2.23 AG New Canaan Ave F, G S - 5910 2.56 AG Broad St F, G S - 2911 2.88 AG Perry Ave F, G S - 3012 3.43 AG Glover Ave F, G S - 5013 4.93 AG Kent Rd F, G S - 34 x x x x14 7.30 AG Wilton Station F S - 4015 8.84 AG Cannon Rd F, G S - 3316 9.54 AG Seeley Rd F, G S - 3317 9.90 AG Honey Hill Rd F, G S - 33 x x x x x x x x18 10.85 AG Pvt. S S - 17 x x x x x x x x x x x x19 12.01 AG North Main St F S - 4020 12.58 AG Portland Ave F S - 4421 12.74 AG Depot Rd F S & S - 4022 14.95 AG Pvt. S S - 2023 15.08 AG Topstone Rd F S - 4424 16.55 AG Pvt. S S - 3025 16.95 AG Pvt. S S - 2026 17.19 AG Long Ridge Rd F S - 3027 20.44 AG Taylor Ave F, G S - 5128 20.52 AG South St F, G S - 5129 20.62 AG Greenwood Ave F,G S - 7230 21.76 AG Great Pasture F, G S - 3631 22.21 AG Shelter Rock Rd F, G S - 3332 22.57 AG Triangle St F, G S - 6633 22.83 AG Taylor St F, G S - 4234 22.99 AG East Liberty St F, G S - 4235 22.6 AG Station Access F, G S & S - 40

TOTAL 5 2 1 5 2 1 5 2 1 5 2 1

CODES:

X = Renew existing grade crossing due to increase in superelevation

5 10 1515 5 10 1510 15 5 10TRACK NO., LENGTH (ft.)

South Norwalk to Danbury: Railroad - Highway Grade Crossings

Proposed Reduction in Running Time (minutes)Single Track Double Track PassSidings - Meets PassSidings - Roll By

WARNING SYSTEM 5ITEM MP LOC. TYPE DESCRIPTION

Item Task Description UM cost/UM1 Construct 136# CWR track TF 1752 S/L/R (3" lift, out of face) TF 153 Renew turnouts (#15) ea 91,0004 Ballast cleaner/undercutter TF 675 Ballast NT 156 Replace broken rail ea 2,2007 Sperry Car TF 0.128 Geometry Car TF 0.079 Utility relocation TM 1,000,00010 Adjust superelevation at open deck bridges (ea. Bridge timber) EA 62511 Rock excavation & spoil cy 8012 Common excavation cy 1513 Borrow Excavation (embankment constr.) cy 3014 Renew public grade crossing (incl. all track work) LF 75015 Renew private grade crossing (incl. all track work) LF 25016 New HL platform on single-track ea 1,100,00017 New HL plat. On 2nd track, OH Ped. Bridge, ADA elevators ea 2,600,00018 New station on 2 tracks: HL plats., OH Ped. Bridge & ADA elevators ea 3,700,00019 Cost of grading for passing sidings TF 30220 Minor bridge work LS 750,00021 Minor grade crossing work LS 150,00022 Communications construction TM 250,00023 Culvert repair/replacement ea 55,00024 Culvert cleaning ea 1,00025 Clean drainage ditch LF 1426 Brush cutting LF 1.0027 Vegetation spraying LF 0.3028 Ballast retainer (UG bridges) LF 79

UM cost / UM

Side Plat., HL, 15 ft. x 600 ft. EA 500,000Plat. Canopy LF 450Plat. Shelter EA 12,000Ped. Bridge, 12 ft. Wide, 60 ft. Long, w / Stairways EA 300,000ADA Elevator EA 570,000

LS 500,000

LS 1,114,000 say, 1,100,000

LS 2,554,000 say, 2,600,000

LS 3,668,000 say, 3,700,000

New Station on Double Track: HL Plats w / 200-ft. canopies and 2 shalters, Pass info system, Ped, Bridge w / ADA elevators (Wilton)

Amtrak

allowance

Pass. Stations: High Level Platforms, Canopies, Ped. Bridges, Vert. Circulation, Pass. Info Systems (excl. prop. acqn., site grading, utilities, parking lots)

Pass. Info System: Fixed Signs, PA system, Variable MessageSigns, etc., per Plat.

Merritt 7, New HL Plat, 200 ft.- long Canopy, 2 Shelters, Pass. Info System

New Plat. on second track. Same as Merritt 7, plus Ped. Bridge and two ADA elevators

allowance

estimate average

GF heavy rail transit

South Norwalk to Danbury Unit Costs: Railroad Track Construction

SourceGF heavy rail transit

GF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transit

allowance

Conrail track estimate



allowance

Tilcon


allowanceMMID

GF bridge dept

allowance

GF bridge dept

Amtrak


GF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transit

Amtrak

Ballast cleaning:TF X cost per TF = 24,605 67 1,640,320Double Track: Single Double Single Double Single Double

New track construction (23.3 TM) TF 123,024 175 21,529,200

turnouts ea 15 91,000 1,365,000 Clean Existing Ditching & Culverts 0 153,120 768,240 343,200 343,200 250,800 250,800

total 22,894,200 Adjust Superelevation (certain curve 0 1,531,200 1,531,200 860,889 860,889 630,881 630,881

Superel. Changes thru Grade Cross 0 66,550 66,550 27,500 27,500 9,350 9,350

track work; 2000 foot-long sidings TF 2,000 175 350,000 Construct New Single Track 0 0 0 9,433,550 9,433,550 12,661,775 12,661,775

earth work; 2000 foot long sidings LF 2,000 302 604,529 Install New Turnouts 1,365,000 0 1,365,000 1,001,000 1,365,000 1,001,000 1,365,000

New Grade Crossings 1,050,000 0 1,050,000 459,657 1,050,000 512,002 1,050,000

track work; 2 - 2 mile long sidings TF 21,120 175 3,696,000 Cut & Throw Betw. New and Exist. T 0 0 0 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000

earth work; 2 - 2 mile long sidings LF 21,120 302 6,383,824 Construct New Second Track 21,529,200 0 21,529,200 0 21,529,200 0 21,529,200

Final Line/Surfacing/Regulate 1,894,570 471,610 1,894,570 830,152 2,724,722 1,114,236 3,008,806

cost per TF X length = ea 750 40 30,000 Misc. Track Constr. tasks 24,879 9,166 24,879 24,879 49,759 24,879 49,759

TOTAL $25,863,649 $2,231,646 $28,229,639 $13,150,828 $37,553,820 $16,374,924 $40,725,570

track miles X cost per TM = 10.2 250,000 2,550,000


unit cost x TF = 175 53,906 9,433,550

unit cost x TF = 175 72,353 12,661,775Cut & Throws Meet Roll - By Meet Roll - By Meet Roll - By

unit cost x EA = 5,000 34 170,000No. of Proposed Sidings 1 1 1 1 1 1

Sperry Car: unit cost x TF = 0.12 130,944 15,713 Construct Passing Siding Trackwork:

Geometry Car: unit cost x TF = 0.07 130,944 9,166 Construct New Track 350,000 1,848,000 350,000 1,848,000 350,000 1,848,000

Ballast undercutter: unit cost x TF = 67 32,736 2,182,400 Install New Turnouts 182,000 182,000 182,000 182,000 182,000 182,000

total 2,207,279 Final Line/Surface/Regulating 30,800 162,624 30,800 162,624 30,800 162,624

Line, Surface, Regulate: SUBTOTAL $562,800 $2,192,624 $562,800 $2,192,624 $562,800 $2,192,624New Constr. Double Track: 15.4 123,024 1,894,570New Constr. - Blue Alignment 15.4 53,906 830,152 Construct Passing Siding - Civil / Struct

New Constr. - Green Align 15.4 72,353 1,114,236 Grading 604,529 3,191,912 604,529 3,191,912 604,529 3,191,912

Adjust Superelevation on Existing Curves: Constuct UG / OH Bridges 600,000 3,900,000 750,000 4,000,000 822,000 2,922,000

unit cost x TF = 30624 50 $1,531,200 SUBTOTAL $1,204,529 $7,091,912 $1,354,529 $7,191,912 $1,426,529 $6,113,912

TOTAL $1,767,329 $9,284,536 $1,917,329 $9,384,536 $1,989,329 $8,306,536

Assumed Siding Locations (Mid-Point of Sidings), per Stingline Figs. SNNM - 1 thru 3

New Plat. Etc.

1. 5-Min. Reduction: MP 7.5, MP 9.5, say one siding at MP 8.5

Meet: MP 8.3 - MP 8.7

Roll - By: MP 7.5 - MP 9.5 Cannondale

2. 10-Min. Reduction: MP 12.0, MP 13.0, say one siding at MP 12.5

Meet: MP 12.3 - MP 12.7

Roll - By: MP 11.5 - MP 13.5 Branchville

3. 15-Min. Reduction: MP 11.5, MP 14.0, say on siding at MP 12.8

Meet: MP 12.6 - MP 13.0 Branchville

Roll - By: MP 11.8 - MP 13.8 Branchville

Green Alignment

5-Min. Reduction 10-Min. Reduction 15-min. Reduction

Misc Track Construction Tasks:

Blue Alignment Track Construction (new ST):

Green Alignment Track Construction (new ST):

Blue Alignment Communications (install new cable):

Green Alignment Communications (install new cable):

Passing Siding - Meet:

Passing Siding - Roll-by:

At Grade Crossings:

South Norwalk to Danbury: Trackwork and Passing Siding Cost Estimate

Green Alignment

5-Min. Reduction 10-Min. Reduction 15-min. ReductionConstruct New 2nd Track Next

to Existing

Construct Sidings Next to

Existing

Red Alignment Blue Alignment

Red Alignment Blue Alignment

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONSOUTH NORWALK TO DANBURY SINGLE TRACK

EXISTING ALIGNMENT5 MINUTE TIME REDUCTION

TOTAL NUMBER TOTALLOCATION COST OF LOCATIONS COST

INTERLOCKINGS 34,460 0 0MASTER LOCATIONS 37,579 0 0CUT SECTIONS 0 0 0HIGHWAY CROSSINGS 44,954 11 494,494ELECTRIC LOCKS 16,438 0 0

TOTAL 133,431 11 494,494

Signal EstimateSouth Norwalk - DanburySingle Track Page 1 of 1 5-Minute Reduction in Running Time


BLUE LINE10 MINUTE TIME REDUCTION


INTERLOCKINGS 339,822 8 2,718,576MASTER LOCATIONS 50,918 10 509,180CUT SECTIONS 44,954 5 224,770HIGHWAY CROSSINGS 84,179 26 2,188,654ELECTRIC LOCKS 60,009 5 300,045

TOTAL 579,882 54 5,941,225



GREEN LINE15 MINUTE TIME REDUCTION



TOTAL 579,882 53 6,179,211


CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONSOUTH NORWALK TO DANBURY DOUBLE TRACK




TOTAL 303,704 70 3,417,470

Signal EstimateSouth Norwalk - DanburyDouble Track

Page 1 of 1 5-Minute Reduction in Running Time





TOTAL 579,882 54 5,941,225

Signal EstimateSouth Norwalk - DanburyDouble Track Page 1 of 1 10-Minute Reduction in Running Time





TOTAL 579,882 53 6,179,211

Signal EstimateSouth Norwalk - DanburyDouble Track Page 1 of 1 15-Minute Reduction in Running Time

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONSOUTH NORWALK TO DANBURY PASSING SIDING MEET




TOTAL 303,704 70 3,417,470

Signal EstimateSouth Norwalk - DanburyPassing Siding - Meet Page 1 of 1 5-Minute Reduction in Running Time





TOTAL 579,882 54 5,941,225






TOTAL 579,882 53 6,179,211


CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONSOUTH NORWALK TO DANBURY PASSING SIDING ROLL-BY




TOTAL 303,704 70 3,417,470

Signal EstimateSouth Norwalk - DanburyPassing Siding - Roll By Page 1 of 1 5-Minute Reduction in Running Time





TOTAL 579,882 54 5,941,225

Signal EstimateSouth Norwalk - DanburyPassing Siding - Roll By

Page 1 of 1 10-Minute Reduction in Running Time





TOTAL 579,882 53 6,179,211

Signal EstimateSouth Norwalk - DanburyPassing Siding - Roll By Page 1 of 1 15-Minute Reduction in Running Time

APPENDIX B

COST ESTIMATE DETAIL

DANBURY - NEW MILFORD

5 min 10 min 15 min No Change (Exist.) 5 min 10 min 15 min 5 min 10 min 15 min 5 min 10 min 15 min

40 50 60 30 40 50 60 40 50 60 40 50 60

1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 15,100,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 13,500,000 1,400,000 900,000 500,000 7,300,000 4,800,000 2,400,000

0 0 0 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 1,420,000 0 240,000 0 240,000 240,000 0

4,410,000 4,410,000 4,410,000 35,250,163 35,250,163 35,250,163 35,250,163 4,413,586 3,809,058 604,529 12,175,736 8,983,824 3,191,912

775,000 850,000 850,000 19,050,000 19,050,000 19,050,000 19,050,000 750,000 900,000 0 12,350,000 10,100,000 9,200,000

9,592,798 9,764,398 21,048,183 12,455,500 14,573,793 14,573,793 16,221,946 1,688,308 1,187,077 562,769 6,577,885 4,385,423 2,192,962

201,728 205,241 2,787,153 438,793 438,793 438,793 2,926,663 438,793 438,793 2,924,983 438,793 438,793 3,463,437

0 0 3,575,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

16,579,525 16,829,639 34,270,336 83,714,456 84,232,749 84,232,749 88,368,771 8,690,687 7,474,928 4,592,281 39,082,413 28,948,040 20,448,310

10% Invest. & Design 1,657,953 1,682,964 3,427,034 8,371,446 8,423,275 8,423,275 8,836,877 869,069 747,493 459,228 3,908,241 2,894,804 2,044,831

15% Const. Management 2,486,929 2,524,446 5,140,550 12,557,168 12,634,912 12,634,912 13,255,316 1,303,603 1,121,239 688,842 5,862,362 4,342,206 3,067,247

40% Contingency 6,631,810 6,731,856 13,708,135 33,485,782 33,693,100 33,693,100 35,347,509 3,476,275 2,989,971 1,836,912 15,632,965 11,579,216 8,179,324

27,356,217 27,768,904 56,546,055 138,128,852 138,984,036 138,984,036 145,808,473 14,339,634 12,333,631 7,577,264 64,485,982 47,764,266 33,739,712

$27M $28M $57M $138M $139M $139M $146M $14M $12M $8M $64M $48M $34M

NOTES:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

TRACK

ROUNDED ESTIMATE

DANBURY to NEW MILFORD: Cost Estimate Summary

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT

R-O-W ACQUISITION

ROADWAY RELOCATION

Passing Sidings -- Roll-BySingle Track Passing Sidings -- Meet

UG / OH BRIDGES

SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS

System Improvement

Reduction in Running Time

Max. Allow. Speed

Double Track

The above cost etimates for the double-tracking and passing siding scenarios assumes that the single-track improvements were previously carried out. Therefore, the estimated total cost (2003) to double-track between Danbury and New Milford is the cost of single track improvements added to double-track improvements. Similarly, the same method is used to estimate the total cost (2003) to construct passing sidings.

SIGNALS

UG / OH BRIDGES: Includes re-decking of existing open deck bridges due to superelevation changes on existing track. Includes construction of new undergrade and overhead bridges associated with double tracking and new passing sidings. Includes upgrading existing Housatonic River Bridge for single track operations and constructing a new, parallel, single track Houatonic River Bridge for double-tracking and new sidings. TRACK: Includes adjusting superelevation (5, 10 & 15-min. scenarios), rehabilitating existing track, track and turnout construction (double tracking and passing sidings) and constructing new grade crossings (existing track and double tracking).

COMMUNICATIONS

GRAND TOTAL

Sub-Total

SIGNALS: Includes extending crossing starts on existing track (5, 10 and 15-min. scenarios) and installing new wayside and interlocking signals on the 15-min. scenario (single track, double track and passing sisings. Manual block operation and hand-throw turnouts for 5 and 10-minute scenarios (single and double tracking). COMMUNICATIONS: Includes installing new fiber optic cable along existing track to serve new stations (PA systen and variable message signs). Assume F.O cable also serves proposed signal system for 15-minute scenarios (single track, double tracking and passing siding scenarios).

R-O-W ACQUISITION: Includes the cost to acquire right-of-way for new alignment construction and the cost to widen existing right-of-way for construction of a second main track or passing sidings. Includes the cost to acquire property for new station sites (incl. parking lots) at Danbury North and Brookfield. ROADWAY RELOCATION: Includes the costs of reolcating existing roadways due to conflicts with proposed railroad alignments, second main tracks and passing sidings. Includes the cost to realign roadways at new OHbridges.

CONTINGENCY: Includes demolition, environmental mitigation, disposal of hazardous material and unanticipated costs.

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT includes on-site inspection, review of shop drawings, review of contractor submittals, review of contractor invoices, final inspection, etc.

INVESTIGATION: Includes survey and mapping, permitting, geotechnical investigation, etc. DESIGN: Includes preliminary and final engineering design, preparation of contract documents, etc.

SITE / CIVIL / STATIONS: Includes grading for railroad construction (new sidings), utility relocation, and new stations (new HL plat.on single track, new HL plats and ped. bridges for second track, ADA). Parking lots and sitework not included in station estimates.

Danbury to New MilfordEstimated Right-of-Way Acquisition Costs

Track Miles of Acres of R-O-W Req'd Track Miles - Widen Acres of R-O-W Req'd Total Acres of R-O-W Estimated Total Cost to Rounded CostSingle Track New Main Line Alignment New Alignment Existing Alignment to Widen Exist. Align. to be Acquired Acquire R-O-W

5 Min. 0 0 0 0 0 -$ -$ 10 Min. 0 0 0 0 0 -$ -$ 15 Min. 0 0 0 0 0 -$ -$

Double Track

Existing 0 0 11.1 67 67 13,454,545$ 13,500,000$ 5 Min. 0 0 11.1 67 67 13,454,545$ 13,500,000$ 10 Min. 0 0 11.1 67 67 13,454,545$ 13,500,000$ 15 Min. 0 0 11.1 67 67 13,454,545$ 13,500,000$

Passing Siding - Meet 5 Min. 0 0 1.1 7 7 1,377,410$ 1,400,000$ 10 Min. 0 0 0.8 5 5 918,274$ 900,000$ 15 Min. 0 0 0.4 2 2 459,137$ 500,000$


5 Min. 0 0 6.0 36 36 7,272,727$ 7,300,000$ 10 Min. 0 0 4.0 24 24 4,848,485$ 4,800,000$ 15 Min. 0 0 2.0 12 12 2,424,242$ 2,400,000$

Property Acquisition for New Stations:

2 Site(s): Danbury North and Brookfield. Assume the existing New Milford station will be used for passenger service. 1,600,000$ 1,600,000$

Estimated typical width of right-of-way to be acquired for new alignment (single track + adj. service ro 100 ft.Note: The second main track would be constructed on the adjacent service road.

Estimated width of right-of-way to be acquired to widen the existing single track alignment for a 2nd tr 50 ft.

Estimated cost to acquire right-of-way: 200,000$ per acre

Typical Station Site: Parking Lot, Access Roads, Platform. 400 ft. x 400 ft. = 160,000 sq. ft. 160,000 sq. ft. = 3.7 acres, say 4 acres. 4 acres x $200,000 / acre = 800,000$ per site

South Norwalk to DanburyEstimated Roadway Relocation Costs

Total Esimated CostSingle Track Est. LF of New Constr. Est. Cost Est. LF of New Constr. Est. Cost No. of New OH Bridges Est. Cost Rounded

5 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ 10 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ 15 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$

Double Track

Existing 0 -$ 0 -$ 6 1,420,455$ 1,420,000$ 5 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 6 1,420,455$ 1,420,000$ 10 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 6 1,420,455$ 1,420,000$ 15 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 6 1,420,455$ 1,420,000$

Passing Siding - Meet 5 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$ 10 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 236,742$ 240,000$ 15 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$


5 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 236,742$ 240,000$ 10 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 1 236,742$ 240,000$ 15 Min. 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ -$

Estimated unit cost to construct new 4 lane U.S. 7: 5,000,000$ per mile

Estimated unit cost to construct local , 2 lane roadway: 1,250,000$ per mile

Estimated LF of roadway realignment at new OH bridges: 1000 LF

Relocate U.S. 7 Relocate Local Streets Realign Roadway Approaches to New OH Bridges

1

23456 80% rock and 20%7 $80 $15 $3089

101112 The existing 2 track areas will be salvaged and will not require additional widening.13

(miles) (ft) (ft) (cy) (ft) (cy) (ft) (cy) (ft) (cy)0.30 2 12 12 20.65 1,848 2 1,369 12 8,213 12 8,213 2 1,3690.80 792 2 587 2 2,053 12 3,520 12 2,0531.00 1,056 2 782 2 782 12 4,693 12 4,6931.25 1,320 12 3,422 17 4,644 2 3,422 2 3,4221.45 1,056 12 4,693 17 6,649 2 782 2 7822.00 2,904 12 12,907 17 18,284 2 2,151 2 2,1512.50 2,640 12 11,733 17 16,622 2 1,956 2 1,9563.00 2,640 12 11,733 2 9,289 2 1,956 2 1,9563.50 2,640 2 6,844 2 1,956 2 1,956 2 1,9564.00 2,640 2 1,956 2 1,956 2 1,956 2 1,9564.30 1,584 2 1,173 17 5,573 12 4,107 2 1,1735.00 3,696 2 2,738 17 23,271 12 16,427 2 2,7385.50 2,640 2 1,956 17 16,622 12 11,733 2 1,9566.20 3,696 2 2,738 17 23,271 12 16,427 2 2,7387.00 4,224 2 3,129 2 14,862 12 18,773 12 10,9518.00 5,280 2 3,911 2 3,911 12 23,467 12 23,4678.20 1,056 2 782 2 782 12 4,693 12 4,6938.30 528 2 391 17 1,858 12 2,347 2 1,3698.60 1,584 2 1,173 17 9,973 12 7,040 2 1,1738.70 528 2 391 2 1,858 12 2,347 12 1,3699.00 1,584 2 1,173 2 1,173 12 7,040 12 7,04010.00 5,280 2 3,911 2 3,911 12 23,467 12 23,46710.50 2,640 2 1,956 2 1,956 12 11,733 12 11,73311.00 2,640 2 1,956 2 1,956 7 9,289 7 9,28911.25 1,320 2 978 2 978 2 2,200 2 2,200

totals 84,382 182,404 191,693 127,649

Vol. of Rock Excavation (unadjusted): 213,429 CY

53,357 CY

Cost of Borrow Excavation = 319,182 CY

Cutting is preferred over filling.Fill section assumes 2:1 slopes beginning 20' from centerline of track.

Typical section based on MBTA Typical Roadbed Section - Two Track on Tangent

Danbury to New Milford: 5, 10 & 15-Minute Reduction in Running Time Estimated Grading Costs to Construct Second Track

Rock excavation per cy Earth (unclassified) excava

Assumptions:

rippable materials.Cut sections will be 1:1 slopes beginning 4' from center of trackside ditch.Excavation will be

Vol. of Unclassified Excavation (unadjusted):

Right fill volumeLeft fill Right fill


This estimate is based on widening cuts and fills on the existing single-track portion of the Danbury - New Milford alignment. New alignment construction is not required to reduce current running times by 5, 10 or 15 minutes.The current Danbury - New Milford alignment is indicated on USGS mapping (Danbury & New Milford 7.5- Min. Quadrangles, dated 1984)The estimated height of Cut/Fill determined from existing USGS mapping (listed above).

Rock excavation will involve blasting. Excavated rock is assumed to be hauled off-site and spoiled.It is assumed that the upper 2' of existing ground would be removed for at-grade and fill sections.

Borrow material will be required for embankment construction. Estimated volume includes a swell / shrinkage factor of 20%.

Mile Post Locations

Distance between

MPsRight cut

Vol. of Borrow Material Required:

Borrow Excav per CY

$9,575,456


Left cut volume

Right cut volume

Left fill volumeLeft cut

$17,074,347

$800,360

Danbury to New MilfordEstimated UG / OH Bridge Requirements

ITEM MP LOC. UG/OH DESCRIPTION TYPESingle Double Single Double Single Double Meet Roll - By Meet Roll - By Meet Roll - By

1 10.78 UG Butler Brook 0 0, 2 0 0, 2 0 0, 2 2 2 22 10.18 UG Housatonic River Thru Truss 6 6, 7 6 6, 7 6 6, 7 7 7 73 8.95 UG Still River 1 1, 2 1 1, 2 1 1, 24 8.57 OH Lakesville Rd. 0 5 0 5 0 55 7.76 OH Erikson Rd 0 5 0 5 0 56 6.93 OH Old Punkinhill Rd 0 5 0 5 0 5 57 6.11 UG Old Middle Rd 0 0, 2 0 0, 2 0 0, 2 2 28 4.30 OH Route 25 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 59 3.25 OH Silvermine Rd 0 5 0 5 0 5

10 2.93 UG Farm Pass 0 0, 2 0 0, 2 0 0, 211 2.44 UG Center Rd 0 0, 2 1 1, 2 1 1, 212 1.59 OH Grays B. Rd 0 5 0 5 0 513 1.09 UG Sandcut Hill Rd 0 0, 2 0 0, 2 0 0, 2 2

14 79.65 UG Still Rv 0 0, 2 0 0, 2 0 0, 2 215 79.27 OH Interstate 84 0 0 0 0 0 016 78.74 UG Beaver Brook Rd 1 1, 2 1 1, 2 1 1, 217 77.84 OH White St 0 0 0 0 0 0

10.77 AG South Ave. 2 2 210.89 AG Mill St. 2 2 2

SUMMARY: No. of Locations Requiring:

1 Adjust superelevation on existing open deck bridge 2 2 3 3 3 3 - - - - - - 2 Construct new single track UG bridge. - 9 - 9 - 9 1 6 - 3 - 3 3 Construct new 2-track UG bridge - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 Modify abutments and / or piers at overhead bridge - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 Construct new OH bridge over RR (assume spans 2 tracks) - 6 - 6 - 6 - 1 1 1 - - 6 Housatonic River Bridge: Misc. repairs and improvements. 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - -7. Construct new bridge over Housatonic River for second track. - 1 - 1 - 1

Codes: Assumed Siding Locations (Mid-Point of Sidings), per Stingline Figs. SNNM - 1 thru 3

0. No change to the existing UG or OH bridge. 1. 5-Min. Reduction: MP 0.5, MP 5.0, MP 6.5, MP 10.0. Say new sidings at MP 0.5, MP 6.0 and MP 10.0. 1. Adjust superelevation on existing open-deck bridge (new bridge timbers for add'l superelevation). Meet: MP 0.3 - MP 0.7 Meet: MP 5.8 - MP 6.2 Meet: MP 9.8 - MP 10.22. Construct new UG bridge on new alignment (bridge on new single track or separate bridge for new 2nd main track). Roll - By: MP 79.5 - MP 1.5 Roll - By: MP 5.0 - MP 7.0 Roll - By: MP 9.0 - MP 11.0 3. Construct new UG bridge on new alignment (2-track bridge) 2. 10-Min. Reduction: MP 3.5, MP 4.5, MP 5.5, MP 10.0. Say new sidings at MP 4.5 and MP 10.04. Modify substructure (abutments and / or piers) of existing OH bridge. Meet: MP 4.3 - MP 4.7 Meet: MP 9.8 - MP 10.25. Construct new OH bridge (over single track RR with service road - or - over double track RR) Roll - By: MP 3.5 - MP 5.5 Roll - By: MP 9.0 - MP 11.0 6. Assume misc. repairs and steel work required at Housatonic River bridge. 3. 15-Min. Reduction: MP 10.5, MP 11.0, Say new siding at MP 10.07. Construct new bridge over Housitonic River for second track. Meet: MP 9.8 - MP 10.2

Roll - By: MP 9.0 - MP 11.0 NOTE: No bridge data on HRRC track charts.

On curve w / incr. in superel.

10-Min. Reduction

Grade. sep. exist. x-ing for pass. sdg.Grade sep. exist. x-ing for pass. sdg.

15-min. Reduction10-Min. ReductionCOMMENTS 15-min. Reduction 5-Min. Reduction 5-Min. Reduction



Danbury to New MilfordEstimated UG / OH Bridge Requirements

ITEM MP LOC. UG/OH DESCRIPTION TYPESingle Double Single Double Single Double Meet Roll - By Meet Roll - By Meet Roll - By

1 10.78 UG Butler Brook 0 200,000 0 200,000 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,0002 10.18 UG Housatonic River Thru Truss 500,000 7,500,000 500,000 7,500,000 500,000 7,500,000 7,500,000 7,500,000 7,500,0003 8.95 UG Still River 200,000 2,000,000 200,000 2,000,000 200,000 2,000,0004 8.57 OH Lakesville Rd. 0 900,000 0 900,000 0 900,0005 7.76 OH Erikson Rd 0 900,000 0 900,000 0 900,0006 6.93 OH Old Punkinhill Rd 0 900,000 0 900,000 0 900,000 900,0007 6.11 UG Old Middle Rd 0 750,000 0 750,000 0 750,000 750,000 750,0008 4.30 OH Route 25 0 900,000 0 900,000 0 900,000 900,000 900,0009 3.25 OH Silvermine Rd 0 900,000 0 900,000 0 900,000

10 2.93 UG Farm Pass 0 200,000 0 200,000 0 200,00011 2.44 UG Center Rd 0 750,000 75,000 750,000 75,000 750,00012 1.59 OH Grays B. Rd 0 900,000 0 900,000 0 900,00013 1.09 UG Sandcut Hill Rd 0 750,000 0 750,000 0 750,000 750,000

14 79.65 UG Still River 0 750,000 0 750,000 0 750,000 750,00015 79.27 OH Interstate 84 0 0 0 0 0 016 78.74 UG Beaver Brook Rd 75,000 750,000 75,000 750,000 75,000 750,00017 77.84 OH White St 0 0 0 0 0 0

10.77 AG South Ave. 750,000 750,000 750,00010.89 AG Mill St. 750,000 750,000 750,000

Total $775,000 $19,050,000 $850,000 $19,050,000 $850,000 $19,050,000 $750,000 $12,350,000 $900,000 $10,100,000 $0 $9,200,000



COMMENTS 15-min. Reduction

Grade sep. exist. x-ing for pass. sdg.

10-Min. Reduction


Grade sep. exist. x-ing for pass. sdg.

5-Min. Reduction 10-Min. Reduction 15-min. Reduction 5-Min. Reduction

A.B. 0.6 TMC. 2.6 TMD. 11.1 TME.

+ 1 11.1 TM+ 2 2.6 TM+ 3

0.6 TM

+ 475,504 TF

+5

16,896 TF+ 6+ 7+ 8 3,017 per TM.+ 9+ 10 439 LF.+ 11 15 each.+ 12+ 13+ 14+ 15 0.15+ 16+ 17+ 18 57.2+ 19+ 20 14+ 21 15,840 TF+ 22+ 23+ 24+ 25+ 26

27+ 28+ 29+ 30+ 31 Double track includes new Berkshire Line track construction from MP 0 to 11.1.+ 32

+ 33 $15.00+ 34 $80.00

Total ROW mileage of Berkshire Jct. - New Milford track rehabilitation is -----------

Every third crosstie will be renewed with a new AREMA grade 7 crosstie.

For the 5 & 10 minute savings new rail anchors will be installed throughout; 16 per rail.For the 15 minute savings all turnouts will be renewed oFor the 5 & 10 minute savings all switch timbers will be replaced or ------------------

Second main track, Berkshire Jct. - New Milford, will be constructed with new 136 # CWR on concrete ties (5, 10 and 15-minute schedule savings).

Track rehab costs for the 5 min and 10 min schedule savings are the same.Track rehab costs for the 15 min savings include installation of 136# CWR & special work

The HRRC Maybrook Line between Danbury and Berkshire Jct is double track for

Existing public grade crossings renewed for 5, 10 and 15-minute savings.

25% of all culverts will be repaired / replaced or ---------------------------------------Ballast cleaning will occur for 3 TM or ---------------------------------------------------

Track will be surfaced, lined and regulated (S / L / R) using trap rock ballast at a NT / TF rate:

25% of all rail joint assemblies are missing / damaged & will be replaced.In-place rails are an average of 36 LF long.

Earth & all other rippable excavation per yard ----------Non rippable excavation per yard -------------------------

Total track footage of existing, single-track main line that will be rehabilitated between Danbury and New Milford, is ------

The rail detector car will test all rail.For the 5 & 10 minute savings ten rails per mile will require replacement.

A 40% contingency will be included to account for the conceptual nature of this project.

10% of ROW milage will have low ballast retaining walls installed.ROW will be sprayed with herbicides.Brush removal will occur on the ROW including grade crossing quadrants for proper site distance.

There are four culverts per mile or ---------------------------------------------------------

Grade crossings costs for double track are twice the single track cost.

Double track includes upgrading existing MNR & HRRC sidings in Danbury to main track.

The MNR Danbury Branch between the MNR Danbury station and connection to the HRRC Maybrook Line is double track (main and siding) for:

The track footage of exsiting passing sidings between MNR Danbury Station and Berkshire Jct. that will be rehabiliated and upgraded to a second main track, is:

It's assumed that crossties are on 21" on centers or -------------------------------------

For the 5 & 10 minute savings the high rails of curves 3˚00’ and greater will be replaced due curve wear.50% of all trackside ditches will be re-profiled.

All under-track culverts will be cleaned.

The Berkshire Line between Berkshire Jct and New Milford is 11.1 ROW miles of 107# jointed rail:All costs are current to 4th quarter 2003.

Assumptions: Track Rehabilitation and Construction

Danbury to New Milford: Assumptions for Developing Trackwork Cost Estimate

Resources used for the track data are MNR, HRRC and the 1985 Conrail track charts. The MNR Danbury Branch between Danbury Station and connection to Maybrook Line, 107 # rail: The Maybrook Line between Danbury and Berkshire Jct is 2.6 ROW miles of 130# jointed rail:

An inspection has not been made of the MNR and HRRC roadbed and track structure. For this study it has been assumed that existing conditions require the following repairs to be made:

Estimated Trackwork Quantities

Incr. Exist. SuperelevationCurve Begin End Length Length

No. MP MP TM TF

A6363 77.15 77.25 0.10 52864 77.60 77.80 0.20 1,056 1,056 1,056 1,05665 78.10 78.30 0.20 1,056 1,056 1,056 1,05666 78.60 78.80 0.20 1,056 1,056 1,056 1,05667 79.55 79.75 0.20 1,05668 0.10 0.30 0.20 1,05669 0.40 0.60 0.20 1,056 1,056 1,056 1,05670 0.80 0.90 0.10 528 528 528 52871 1.18 1.33 0.15 792 792 792 79272 1.63 1.78 0.15 792 792 792 79273 2.15 2.25 0.10 528 528 528 52874 2.35 2.45 0.10 528 528 52875 3.00 3.20 0.20 1,056 1,05676 3.48 3.53 0.05 264 264 26477 3.73 3.88 0.15 792 792 792 79278 4.15 4.65 0.50 2,640 2,640 2,64079 4.90 5.00 0.10 528 528 528 52880 5.40 5.60 0.20 1,056 1,056 1,056 1,05681 5.90 6.00 0.10 528 52882 6.13 6.28 0.15 792 792 792 79283 6.80 7.20 0.40 2,112 2,112 2,112 2,11284 7.55 7.65 0.10 528 528 528 52885 8.43 8.58 0.15 792 792 792 79286 8.90 9.10 0.20 1,056 1,056 1,056 1,05687 10.30 10.50 0.20 1,056 1,056 1,056 1,05688 10.68 10.83 0.15 79289 11.08 11.13 0.05 264

15,576 19,008 20,592 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

No. 10 10 10 8 9 9 8No. 15 0 0 0 0 0 1No. 20 0 0 2 0 0 0Total: 10 10 10 9 9 9

No. 10 2 2 0 13 13 6No. 15 0 0 0 0 0 0No. 20 0 0 2 0 0 7Total: 2 2 2 13 13 13

14.2 14.2 14.2 36.3 36.3 36.3

5 10 15 5 5 10 1510 15 5 10 15

Proposed Reduction in Running Time (minutes)Single Track Double Track Passing Sidings - Meets Passing Sidings - Roll By

Danbury - New Milford: 5, 10 and 15-Minute Savings

Total: Turnouts and Crossovers (crossovers

equated to turnouts)

5 & 10 Min. Savings: Renew Switch Timbers 15 Min. Savings: Renew Turnout, complete

5 & 10 Min. Savings: Renew Switch Timbers 15 Min. Savings: Renew Crossover, complete

Total - Adjust Exist. Superelevation (TF)

Install New Sw. Timbers / T.O.s

Install New Switch Timbers / X.O.s

ITEM MP LOC TYPE DESCRIPTION WARNING SYSTEM NO. OF TRACKS

1 11.01 AG Bridge St (U.S.202) F, G S X X X X X X2 10.89 AG Mill St F S X X X X X X Y Y Y3 10.77 AG South Ave F S X X X X X X Y Y Y4 9.81 AG Kimberly Clarke - Pvt. Unkown S & Sdg. X X X X X X Z Z Z5 9.32 AG Farm - Pvt. Unknown S X X X X X X Z Z Z6 8.60 AG Laneseller Rd F, G S X X X X X X

7 79.41 AG Eagle Pencil F, G 2 X X X X X X8 77.50 AG Wildman St F, G 2 X X X X X X

AG: At Grade Crossing F: Flashing Lights S: Single Track TOTAL - Public 6 6 6 12 12 12Pvt.: Private Crossing G: Gates TOTAL - Private 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2

Comments:X: Existing grade crossings to be renewed during rehabilitation of existing single track. New grade crossing to be installed on new second trackY: Existing public grade crossing to be grade-separated if the proposed passing siding is constructed.Z Existing private grade crossing to be extended across proposed passing siding (Private crossings would not be grade-separated).

15 5

HR

RC

Ber

kshi

re L

ine

HR

RC

M

aybr

ook

Line

5 10

Proposed Reduction in Running Time (minutes)Single Track Double Track Passing Sidings - Meets Passing Sidings - Roll By

Danbury - New MilfordRailroad - Highway Grade Crossing Renewal

1510 15 5 105 10 15

Danbury to New Milford: Cost Estimate for Track Rehabilitation

An inspection has not been made of the HRRC's roadbed and track structure. For this study it has been assumed that existing conditions require the following repairs to be made:All costs are current to 4th quarter 2003.

work task UM quantity unit cost 5 & 10 min cost 15 min cost1 renew crosstie ea 14,382 102 1,466,935 1,466,9352 S/L/R track TF 75,504 15 1,161,600 1,161,6003 install anchor ea 67,115 5 335,573 335,5734 renew turnout ea 14.2 91,000 0 1,292,2005 switch timber LF 6,234 14 84,503 06 replace angle bar pair pr 1,384 150 207,636 07 replace curve worn rail LF 6,336 80 508,990 08 replace all rail w/ 136# CWR LF 151,008 73 0 11,028,1149 Sperry Car TF 75,504 0.12 9,060 9,060

10 replace broken rail ea 143 2,200 314,600 011 Geometry Car TF 75,504 0.07 5,285 5,28512 ballast cleaning TF 15,840 67 1,056,000 1,056,00013 ballast retainer LF 18,876 79 1,491,204 1,491,20414 drainage ditch profiling (50%) LF 75,504 14 1,057,056 1,057,05615 culvert repair/replacement ea 14 55,000 786,500 786,50016 culvert cleaning ea 43 1,000 42,900 42,90017 brushing TF 75,504 1.00 75,504 75,50418 spraying TF 75,504 0.30 22,651 22,65119 totals $8,625,998 $19,830,583

Cost per TF TF 75,504 $114 $263Cost per TF, minus T.O.s, U/C, Bal. Ret. TF 75,504 $212

row task description UM cost/UM1 construct 136# CWR track TF 1752 renew turnouts (#15) ea 91,0003 Housatonic Rv Br upgrade LS 500,0004 utility conflicts TM 100,0005 New bridge timbers (adj. superelev.) ea 6256 rock excavation cy 807 dirt excavation cy 158 borrow excavation (embankment constr.) cy 309 HL platform on single-track ea 1,100,00010 New HL platf.on 2nd track, OH ped. br. & ADA elev ea 2,600,00011 New station on 2 tracks , HL plats, OH ped br., ADA ea 3,700,00012 renew public grade crossing (incl all track work) LF 75013 renew private grade crossing (incl all track work) LF 25013 ave cost of grading for passong sidings LF 30214 minor bridge work LS 400,00015 minor road crossing work LS 150,00016 communications construction TM 250,000

includes labor, equip, ballast, work trains

row task description UM cost/UM1 inserted wooden cross tie ea 1022 inserted switch timber LF 143 S/L/R (3" lift, out of face) TF 154 ballast NT 155 upgrade rail w/ 136# CWR (out of face) RF 736 replace broken rail ea 2,2007 replace curve worn rail w/ 119# CWR RF 808 furnish & install anchors ea 5.009 replace angle bars & bolts pr 15010 Sperry Car TF 0.1211 Geometry Car TF 0.0712 ballast cleaner/undercutter TF 6713 renew turnouts (#15) ea 91,00014 culvert repair/replacement ea 55,00015 culvert clean ea 1,00016 clean drainage ditch LF 1417 brushing LF 1.0018 spraying LF 0.3019 ballast retainer LF 792021

Amtrak

allowance

Average from SND est.allowanceallowance

Danbury to New Milford Unit Costs: Trackwork, Civil / Sitework and Station Constr.


MMID

allowanceGF heavy rail transit

allowance

GF bridge deptGF bridge dept

sourceGF heavy rail transit

Amtrak

allowance

allowance

Amtrak

source

GF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transit

Amtrak

GF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transit

Conrail track estimateConrail track estimateConrail track estimateConrail track estimateConrail track estimateConrail track estimateGF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transitGF heavy rail transit

surfacing gang's production per shift 2,600 cost per TFLabor cost per shift 12,000 4.62Equip cost per shift 8,500 3.27Ballast cost per NT 15.00 7.50

total 15.38

curve no.location

(MP) curve degree length (mi)

2 0 00'4 0 00'2 0 00'3 0 30'1 0 45'2 0 00'4 0 00'2 0 00'

66 78.70 3 0 00' 0.2065 78.20 2 0 57' 0.20

4 0 00'5 0 00'

63 77.20 4 0 00' 0.10total miles: 1.20total RF: 6,336

assume that there are 15 TOs …………. 15LF of switch timber in #15 = ………….. 439

UM cost/UM

Side Plat., HL, 15 ft. x 600 ft. EA 500,000Plat. Canopy LF 450Plat. Shelter EA 12,000Ped. Bridge, 12 ft. Wide, 60 ft. Long, w / Stairways EA 300,000ADA Elevator EA 570,000

LS 500,000

LS 1,114,000 say, 1,100,000

LS 2,554,000 say, 2,600,000

LS 3,668,000 say, 3,700,000

New Station on Double Track: HL Plats w / 200-ft. canopies and 2 shalters, Pass. info system, Ped. Bridge w / ADA elevators (Wilton)

Pass. Stations: High Level Platforms, Canopies, Ped. Bridges, Vert. Circulation, Pass. Info Systems (excl. prop. acqn., site grading, utilities, parking lots)

Pass. Info System: Fixed Signs, PA system, Variable MessageSigns, etc., per Plat.

Merritt 7, New HL Plat, 200 ft.- long Canopy, 2 Shelters, Pass. Info System

New Plat. on second track. Same as Merritt 7, plus Ped. Bridge and two ADA elevators

Track S/L/R

10.40

High side curve relay

84 0.20

77.7064 0.20

Turnouts

69 0.15

68 0.15

1.70

1.25

Track Rehab - 5 Min.: UM QTY UC Assumed Siding Locations (Mid-Point of Sidings), per Stingline Figs. SNNM - 1 thru 3

Rehab. Track LS 8,625,998Adjust Superelevation on Exist. Curves TF 15,576 50 778,800 1. 5-Min. Reduction: MP 0.5, MP 5.0, MP 6.5, MP 10.0. Say new sidings at MP 0.5, MP 6.0 and MP 10.0. Total 9,404,798 Meet: MP 0.3 - MP 0.7 Meet: MP 5.8 - MP 6.2 Meet: MP 9.8 - MP 10.2

Track Rehab - 10 Min.: Roll - By: MP 79.5 - MP 1.5 Roll - By: MP 5.0 - MP 7.0 Roll - By: MP 9.0 - MP 11.0

Rehab. Track LS 8,625,998 2. 10-Min. Reduction: MP 3.5, MP 4.5, MP 5.5, MP 10.0. Say new sidings at MP 4.5 and MP 10.0Adjust Superelevation on Exist. Curves TF 19,008 50 950,400 Meet: MP 4.3 - MP 4.7 Meet: MP 9.8 - MP 10.2Total 9,576,398 Roll - By: MP 3.5 - MP 5.5 Roll - By: MP 9.0 - MP 11.0

Track Rehab - 15 Min.: 3. 15-Min. Reduction: MP 10.5, MP 11.0, Say new siding at MP 10.0

Rehab. Track LS 19,830,583 Meet: MP 9.8 - MP 10.2Adjust Superelevation on Exist. Curves TF 20,592 50 1,029,600 Roll - By: MP 9.0 - MP 11.0 Total 20,860,183

Construct New Second Track - 5 & 10 - Min.:

New Track Construction TF 58,608 175 10,256,400Upgrade Exist. Sidings to Main Tracks TF 16,896 114 1,930,293 5-Min. Reduction: Meet & 'Roll-By: MP 0.6, Danbury North: $2,600,000Turnouts ea 22 91,000 2,011,100 10-Min. reduction Meet & 'Roll-By: MP 4.4, Brookfield: $2,600,000

total 14,197,793 15-Min. reduction Meet & 'Roll-By: N/A $0

Construct New Second Track - 15 Min.:New Track Construction TF 58,608 175 10,256,400

Upgrade Exist. Sidings to Main Tracks TF 16,896 212 3,578,446 Meet Roll - By Meet Roll - By Meet Roll - By

Turnouts ea 22 91,000 2,011,100

total 15,845,946 No. of Proposed Sidings 3 3 2 2 1 1

Construct Passing Siding Trackwork:

New Track Constr.; 2000-foot long siding TF 2,000 175 350,000 Construct New Track 1,050,000 5,544,000 700,000 3,696,000 350,000 1,848,000Earthwork; 2000-foot long siding LF 2,000 302 604,529 Install New Turnouts 546,000 546,000 364,000 364,000 182,000 182,000

Final Line/Surface/Regulating 92,308 487,385 123,077 324,923 30,769 162,462New Track Constr.; 2-mile long siding TF 10,560 175 1,848,000 SUBTOTAL $1,688,308 $6,577,385 $1,187,077 $4,384,923 $562,769 $2,192,462Earthwork; 2-mile long siding LF 10,560 302 3,191,912

Construct Passing Siding - Civil / StructPublic: No. of crossings X cost per TF X length = 6 750 40 180,000 Grading 1,813,586 9,575,736 1,209,058 6,383,824 604,529 3,191,912Private: No. of crossings X cost per TF X length = 2 250 16 8,000 Constuct UG / OH Bridges 750,000 12,350,000 900,000 10,100,000 0 9,200,000

SUBTOTAL $2,563,586 $21,925,736 $2,109,058 $16,483,824 $604,529 $12,391,912Public: No. of crossings X cost per TF X length = 12 750 40 360,000 TOTAL $4,251,894 $28,503,120 $3,296,134 $20,868,747 $1,167,298 $14,584,373Private: No. of crossings X cost per TF X length = 4 250 16 16,000


10-Min. Reduction 15-min. Reduction5-Min. Reduction Construct Sidings Next to Existing

New HL Plat., Ped. Bridge & ADA Elevators to be built along sidings at:

Communications:

Danbury to New Milford Cost Estimates: Trackwork and Passing Siding Construction

Passing Siding - Roll-By:

Passing Siding - Meet:

At Grade Crossings - Single Track:

At Grade Crossings - Double Track:

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDANBURY TO NEW MILFORD SINGLE TRACK

EXISTING SYSTEM 5 MINUTE TIME REDUCTION STUDYEST. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTALNO. LOCATION LOCATION MTRL COST LABOR COST OTHER COST COST05 77.5 WILDMAN ST. 12,469 27,877 0 40,34609 79.41 EAGLE PENCIL 12,469 27,877 0 40,34612 10.77 SOUTH AVENUE 12,469 27,877 0 40,34613 10.89 MILL ST. 12,469 27,877 0 40,34614 11.01 BRIDGE ST. 12,469 27,877 0 40,346

TOTAL 62,344 139,384 0 201,728

Signal EstimateDanbury - New MilfordSingle Track

Page 1 of 65-Minute Reduction in Running Time

CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY BRANCH 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 05 LOCATION: WILDMAN ST.

ESTIMATED BY: EDSLOC. MATERIAL TOTAL LABOR TOTAL LABOR TOTAL OTHER TOTAL

NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST/UNIT MTRL COST HRS/UNIT LABOR HRS RATE LABOR COST COSTS COST

05 Design Circuit Changes 3 Ea 0.00 0 40.00 120.00 100.00 12,000 0 12,000

05 MISCELLANEOUS 1 LS 2,500.00 2,500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 2,500

05 Case Wired W/FND. & BATTERIES 2 Ea 3,630.00 7,260 40.00 80.00 70.00 5,600 0 12,860

05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 TESTING AND CUTOVER @ 10% OF LABOR 1,799 1,799

05 CONTINGENCIES @25% OF LABOR AND MATERIAL 2,494 4,496 6,990

05 LOST TIME @ 20% OF LABOR 3,597 3,59705 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346

Signal EstimateDanbury - New MilfordSingle Track Page 2 of 6 5-Minute Reduction in Running Time

CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY BRANCH 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 09 LOCATION: EAGLE PENCIL






09 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

09 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

09 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

09 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

09 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

09 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0


09 CONTINGENCIES @ 25% OF LABOR AND MATERIAL 2,494 4,496 6,990



CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY BRANCH 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 12 LOCATION: SOUTH AVENUE






12 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

12 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

12 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

12 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

12 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

12 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0




Signal EstimateDanbury - New MilfordSingle Track Page 4 of 6

5-Minute Reduction in Running Time

CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY BRANCH SIGNALIZATION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 13 LOCATION: MILL ST






13 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

13 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

13 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

13 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

13 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

13 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0





CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY BRANCH 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 14 LOCATION: BRIDGE ST.

ESTIMATED BY: EDSLOC. MATERIAL TOTAL LABOR TOTAL LABOR TOTAL OTHER TOTALNO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST/UNIT MTRL COST HRS/UNIT LABOR HRS RATE LABOR COST COSTS COST14 Design Circuit Changes 3 Ea 0.00 0 40.00 120.00 100.00 12,000 0 12,000



14 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

14 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 10514 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 014 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 014 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 014 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 014 TESTING AND CUTOVER @ 10% OF LABOR 1,799 1,79914 CONTINGENCIES @ 25% OF LABOR AND MATERIAL 2,494 4,496 6,99014 LOST TIME @ 20% OF LABOR 3,597 3,59714 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346




EXISTING SYSTEM 10 MINUTE TIME REDUCTION STUDYEST. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTALNO. LOCATION LOCATION MTRL COST LABOR COST OTHER COST COST05 77.5 WILDMAN ST. 12,738 28,311 0 41,04809 79.41 EAGLE PENCIL 12,738 28,311 0 41,04812 10.77 SOUTH AVENUE 12,738 28,311 0 41,04813 10.89 MILL ST. 12,738 28,311 0 41,04814 11.01 BRIDGE ST. 12,738 28,311 0 41,048

TOTAL 63,688 141,554 0 205,241


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY BRANCH 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 05 LOCATION: WILDMAN ST.






05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0





CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY BRANCH 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 09 LOCATION: EAGLE PENCIL






09 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990

09 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

09 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

09 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

09 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

09 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0





CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY BRANCH 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 12 LOCATION: SOUTH AVENUE






12 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990

12 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

12 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

12 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

12 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

12 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0





10-Minute Reduction inRunning Time

CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY BRANCH 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 13 LOCATION: MILL ST






13 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990

13 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

13 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

13 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

13 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

13 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0






CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY BRANCH 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 14 LOCATION: BRIDGE ST.

ESTIMATED BY: EDSLOC. MATERIAL TOTAL LABOR TOTAL LABOR TOTAL OTHER TOTALNO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST/UNIT MTRL COST HRS/UNIT LABOR HRS RATE LABOR COST COSTS COST14 Design Circuit Changes 3 Ea 0.00 0 40.00 120.00 100.00 12,000 0 12,000



14 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990

14 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 10514 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 014 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 014 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 014 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 014 TESTING AND CUTOVER @ 10% OF LABOR 1,827 1,82714 CONTINGENCIES @ 25% OF LABOR AND MATERIAL 2,548 4,566 7,11414 LOST TIME @ 20% OF LABOR 3,653 3,65314 TOTAL 12,738 210 28,311 0 41,048



15 MINUTE TIME REDUCTION STUDYTOTAL NUMBER TOTAL

LOCATION COST OF LOCATIONS COSTINTERLOCKINGS 339,822 3 1,019,466MASTER LOCATIONS 50,918 14 712,852CUT SECTIONS 49,238 8 393,904HIGHWAY CROSSINGS 84,179 5 420,895ELECTRIC LOCKS 60,009 4 240,036

TOTAL 584,166 34 2,787,153


CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDANBURY TO NEW MILFORD DOUBLE TRACK

5 MINUTE TIME REDUCTION STUDYEST. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTALNO. LOCATION LOCATION MTRL COST LABOR COST OTHER COST COST05 77.5 WILDMAN ST. 12,469 27,877 0 40,34609 79.41 EAGLE PENCIL 12,469 27,877 0 40,34612 10.77 SOUTH AVENUE 68,163 51,204 0 119,36713 10.89 MILL ST. 68,163 51,204 0 119,36714 11.01 BRIDGE ST. 68,163 51,204 0 119,367

TOTAL 229,427 209,366 0 438,793

Signal EstimateDanbury - New MilfordDouble Track Page 1 of 6 5-Minute Reduction in Running Time

CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY To NEW MILFORD DOUBLE TRACK 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 05 LOCATION: WILDMAN ST.

ESTIMATED BY: EDSLOC. MATERIAL TOTAL LABOR TOTAL LABOR TOTAL OTHER TOTALNO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST/UNIT MTRL COST HRS/UNIT LABOR HRS RATE LABOR COST COSTS COST




05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0



05 LOST TIME @ 20% OF LABOR 3,597 3,597

05 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY To NEW MILFORD DOUBLE TRACK 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 09 LOCATION: EAGLE PENCIL





05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0




05 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY To NEW MILFORD DOUBLE TRACK 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 12 LOCATION: SOUTH AVENUE


12 HOUSE, WIRED COMPLETE W/BATTERIES 1 Ea 36,300.00 36,300 92.00 92.00 70.00 6,440 0 42,740

12 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

12 BATTERIES (LV) 106 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

12 RECTIFIER LV 1 Ea 522.50 523 1.50 1.50 70.00 105 0 628

12 CABLE, 2-(1C - #6 TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990

12 CABLE, 17 COND GATE 200 Ft 5.25 1,050 0.06 12.00 70.00 840 0 1,890

12 F.L. SIGNAL AND GATE ASSEMBLY 2 Ea 7,150.00 14,300 56.00 112.00 70.00 7,840 0 22,140

12 FOUNDATION 2 Ea 414.00 828 36.00 72.00 70.00 5,040 0 5,868






12 TOTAL 68,163 421 51,204 0 119,367


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY To NEW MILFORD DOUBLE TRACK 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 13 LOCATION: MILL ST



13 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105


13 RECTIFIER LV 1 Ea 522.50 523 1.50 1.50 70.00 105 0 628

13 CABLE, 2-(1C - #6 TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990



13 FOUNDATION 2 Ea 414.00 828 36.00 72.00 70.00 5,040 0 5,868






13 TOTAL 68,163 0 51,204 0 119,367


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY To NEW MILFORD DOUBLE TRACK 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 14 LOCATION: BRIDGE ST.

ESTIMATED BY: EDSLOC. MATERIAL TOTAL LABOR TOTAL LABOR TOTAL OTHER TOTALNO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST/UNIT MTRL COST HRS/UNIT LABOR HRS RATE LABOR COST COSTS COST14 HOUSE, WIRED COMPLETE W/BATTERIES 1 Ea 36,300.00 36,300 92.00 92.00 70.00 6,440 0 42,740

14 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105


14 RECTIFIER LV 1 Ea 522.50 523 1.50 1.50 70.00 105 0 62814 CABLE, 2-(1C - #6 TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 99014 CABLE, 17 COND GATE 200 Ft 5.25 1,050 0.06 12.00 70.00 840 0 1,89014 F.L. SIGNAL AND GATE ASSEMBLY 2 Ea 7,150.00 14,300 56.00 112.00 70.00 7,840 0 22,14014 FOUNDATION 2 Ea 414.00 828 36.00 72.00 70.00 5,040 0 5,86814 Design Circuit Changes 3 Ea 0.00 0 40.00 120.00 100.00 12,000 0 12,00014 MISCELLANEOUS 1 LS 1,100.00 1,100 0.00 0.00 70.00 0 0 1,10014 TESTING AND CUTOVER @ 10% OF LABOR 3,304 3,30414 CONTINGENCIES @ 25% OF LABOR AND MATERIAL 13,633 8,259 21,89114 LOST TIME @ 20% OF LABOR 6,607 6,60714 TOTAL 68,163 421 51,204 0 119,367

Signal Estimate Danbury - New MilfordDouble Track Page 6 of 6 5-Minute Reduction in Running Time



TOTAL 229,427 209,366 0 438,793


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY To NEW MILFORD DOUBLE TRACK 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 05 LOCATION: WILDMAN ST.





05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0




05 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY To NEW MILFORD DOUBLE TRACK 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 09 LOCATION: EAGLE PENCIL





05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0




05 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346

Signal EstimateDanbury - New MilfordDouble Track

Page 3 of 610-Minute Reduction in Running Time

CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY To NEW MILFORD DOUBLE TRACK 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 12 LOCATION: SOUTH AVENUE



12 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105


12 RECTIFIER LV 1 Ea 522.50 523 1.50 1.50 70.00 105 0 628

12 CABLE, 2-(1C - #6 TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990



12 FOUNDATION 2 Ea 414.00 828 36.00 72.00 70.00 5,040 0 5,868






12 TOTAL 68,163 421 51,204 0 119,367


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY To NEW MILFORD DOUBLE TRACK 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 13 LOCATION: MILL ST



13 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105


13 RECTIFIER LV 1 Ea 522.50 523 1.50 1.50 70.00 105 0 628

13 CABLE, 2-(1C - #6 TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990



13 FOUNDATION 2 Ea 414.00 828 36.00 72.00 70.00 5,040 0 5,868






13 TOTAL 68,163 0 51,204 0 119,367


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY To NEW MILFORD DOUBLE TRACK 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 14 LOCATION: BRIDGE ST.


14 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105







TOTAL 584,166 31 2,926,663


CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDING MEET


TOTAL 229,427 209,366 0 438,793

Signal EstimateDanbury - New MilfordPassing Siding - Meet Page 1 of 6 5-Minute Reduction in Running Time

CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 05 LOCATION: WILDMAN ST.





05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0




05 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 09 LOCATION: EAGLE PENCIL





05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0




05 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 12 LOCATION: SOUTH AVENUE



12 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105


12 RECTIFIER LV 1 Ea 522.50 523 1.50 1.50 70.00 105 0 628

12 CABLE, 2-(1C - #6 TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990



12 FOUNDATION 2 Ea 414.00 828 36.00 72.00 70.00 5,040 0 5,868






12 TOTAL 68,163 421 51,204 0 119,367


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 13 LOCATION: MILL ST



13 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105


13 RECTIFIER LV 1 Ea 522.50 523 1.50 1.50 70.00 105 0 628

13 CABLE, 2-(1C - #6 TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990



13 FOUNDATION 2 Ea 414.00 828 36.00 72.00 70.00 5,040 0 5,868






13 TOTAL 68,163 0 51,204 0 119,367


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS 5 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 14 LOCATION: BRIDGE ST.


14 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105




CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDING MEET


TOTAL 229,427 209,366 0 438,793


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 05 LOCATION: WILDMAN ST.





05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0




05 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346

Signal EstimateDanbury - New MilfordPassing Siding - Meet Page 2 og 6 10-Minute Reduction in Running Time

CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 09 LOCATION: EAGLE PENCIL





05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0




05 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 12 LOCATION: SOUTH AVENUE



12 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105


12 RECTIFIER LV 1 Ea 522.50 523 1.50 1.50 70.00 105 0 628

12 CABLE, 2-(1C - #6 TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990



12 FOUNDATION 2 Ea 414.00 828 36.00 72.00 70.00 5,040 0 5,868






12 TOTAL 68,163 421 51,204 0 119,367


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 13 LOCATION: MILL ST



13 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105


13 RECTIFIER LV 1 Ea 522.50 523 1.50 1.50 70.00 105 0 628

13 CABLE, 2-(1C - #6 TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990



13 FOUNDATION 2 Ea 414.00 828 36.00 72.00 70.00 5,040 0 5,868






13 TOTAL 68,163 0 51,204 0 119,367

Signal EstimateDanbury - New MilfordPassing Siding - meet Paage 5 of 6 10-Minute Reduction in Running Time

CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 14 LOCATION: BRIDGE ST.


14 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105




CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS MEET



TOTAL 584,166 31 2,924,983


CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDING ROLL-BY


TOTAL 229,427 209,366 0 438,793

Signal EstimateDanbury - New MilfordPassing Siding - Roll By Page 1 of 6 5-Minute Reduction in Running Time

CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS ROLL-BY 5-MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 05 LOCATION: WILDMAN ST.





05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0




05 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS ROLL-BY 5-MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 09 LOCATION: EAGLE PENCIL





05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0




05 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS ROLL-BY 5-MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 12 LOCATION: SOUTH AVENUE



12 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105


12 RECTIFIER LV 1 Ea 522.50 523 1.50 1.50 70.00 105 0 628

12 CABLE, 2-(1C - #6 TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990



12 FOUNDATION 2 Ea 414.00 828 36.00 72.00 70.00 5,040 0 5,868






12 TOTAL 68,163 421 51,204 0 119,367


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS ROLL-BY 5-MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 13 LOCATION: MILL ST



13 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105


13 RECTIFIER LV 1 Ea 522.50 523 1.50 1.50 70.00 105 0 628

13 CABLE, 2-(1C - #6 TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990



13 FOUNDATION 2 Ea 414.00 828 36.00 72.00 70.00 5,040 0 5,868






13 TOTAL 68,163 0 51,204 0 119,367


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS ROLL-BY 5-MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 14 LOCATION: BRIDGE ST.


14 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105




CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING ROLL-BY SIDINGS


TOTAL 229,427 209,366 0 438,793


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS ROLL-BY 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 05 LOCATION: WILDMAN ST.





05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0




05 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS ROLL-BY 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 09 LOCATION: EAGLE PENCIL





05 Cable 2-(1c-#6TW) 100 Ft 2.15 215 0.04 4.00 70.00 280 0 495

05 Batteries 106AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105

05 0 Ea 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 LS 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

05 0 Ft 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0




05 TOTAL 12,469 206 27,877 0 40,346


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS ROLL-BY 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 12 LOCATION: SOUTH AVENUE



12 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105


12 RECTIFIER LV 1 Ea 522.50 523 1.50 1.50 70.00 105 0 628

12 CABLE, 2-(1C - #6 TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990



12 FOUNDATION 2 Ea 414.00 828 36.00 72.00 70.00 5,040 0 5,868






12 TOTAL 68,163 421 51,204 0 119,367


CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS ROLL-BY 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 13 LOCATION: MILL ST



13 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105


13 RECTIFIER LV 1 Ea 522.50 523 1.50 1.50 70.00 105 0 628

13 CABLE, 2-(1C - #6 TW) 200 Ft 2.15 430 0.04 8.00 70.00 560 0 990



13 FOUNDATION 2 Ea 414.00 828 36.00 72.00 70.00 5,040 0 5,868






13 TOTAL 68,163 0 51,204 0 119,367

Signal EstimateDanbury - New MilfordPassing Siding - Roll By Page 5 of 6 10-Minute Reduction in Runing Time

CLIENT: CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION JOB DESCRIPTION: DANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS ROLL-BY 10 MIN. REDUCTION STUDY ESTIMATE NO: 14 LOCATION: BRIDGE ST.


14 BATTERIES 265 AH 6 Ea 0.00 0 0.25 1.50 70.00 105 0 105




CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONDANBURY TO NEW MILFORD PASSING SIDINGS ROLL-BY



TOTAL 584,166 36 3,463,437


Connecticut Department of Transportation Draft Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Danbury Branch Electrification Feasibility Study


2

TASK 2.5 EVALUATE INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES.......................3

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 3

2.5.1 Rail Vehicle Design .................................................................................................. 3 2.5.1.1 Diesel Multiple Units (DMU’s) .......................................................................... 4

History and Development of DMU’s.......................................................................... 4 Cost Effectiveness of DMU Equipment and Operations ............................................ 6 DMU Vehicles ............................................................................................................ 7

The Colorado Railcar.............................................................................................. 7 Bombardier Proposed FRA Compliant DMU......................................................... 9 International DMU Equipment ............................................................................. 10 Siemens DMU Equipment .................................................................................... 11

Alstom DMU Equipment.............................................................................................. 13 Current Use of DMU’s in the US ......................................................................... 14

2.5.1.2 Tilt Technology................................................................................................ 16

2.5.2 Traffic Control Systems for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings ............................ 16 Four-Quadrant Gates..................................................................................................... 16

2.5.3 Service/Operations Skip-Stop Service and Express Service .............................. 20 Skip – Stop Service and Schedules............................................................................... 20

Example “A”............................................................................................................. 21 Example “B” ............................................................................................................. 22 Example “C” ............................................................................................................. 23 Example “D”............................................................................................................. 24 Example “E” ............................................................................................................. 24 Example “F”.............................................................................................................. 25

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................26 ATTACHMENT – CRM DMU MODELING FOR DANBURY BRANCH…………27


3

Task 2.5 Evaluate Innovative Technologies Scope requirements:

• Investigate availability of innovative technologies that could result in increased speed/reduced running time on the Branch

• Look at: o Vehicle design, track infrastructure and grade crossing protection o Tilt technology utilized by Amtrak in its Acela equipment o FRA Office of Research and Development o Literature Search o Contact: Five domestic properties: Tri-Rail (Miami), NJ Transit New

River Line, New York City Transit, Charlotte, and Triangle Transit (Raleigh-Durham).

o Two overseas operators of rail passenger service which are recognized as technology innovators: SNCF (French National Railways); RATP (Paris Commuter Rail system); Siemens Corporation and Bombardier (vehicle manufacturers in Europe).

Introduction This section of the report presents the potential innovative technologies and solutions that are available and applicable to the Danbury Branch Line and the potential extension of service from Danbury to New Milford. The goal is to identify and explore technologies and innovative approaches to service that could improve speeds and reduce running times within the most cost effective and practical means. Given the high cost and limitations of other options examined in this report, such as track geometry improvements (curve realignments), double tracking, the addition of passing sidings and the overall cost of electrification, the potential to find solutions through innovation is deserving of serious attention. The study looks at innovative technologies in three basic areas:

1. Rail Vehicle Design 2. Highway-rail Grade Crossing Traffic Control Systems 3. Service/Operations

2.5.1 Rail Vehicle Design Locomotive hauled coaches in a push – pull configuration provide the existing rail passenger service on the Danbury Branch. Rail vehicle technologies presently available that could improve operational costs or reduce trip times include Diesel Multiple Units and tilting cars.


4

2.5.1.1 Diesel Multiple Units (DMU’s) The use of self-powered diesel rail cars, known as Diesel Multiple Units (DMU’s) is undergoing a quiet revolution in the commuter rail and transit industry as rail and transit operators throughout the world are seeking more economical and efficient ways to operate service in less densely traveled areas. The applicability of a DMU to the Danbury Branch is worthy of consideration for the following reasons:

• Industry estimates show that DMU operating costs are as much as 28% lower than existing conventional locomotive and coach consists with four or fewer cars.

• Acceleration and deceleration at the lower range, and overall performance of the DMU is approximately equivalent to the existing Genesis locomotives and coaches and 10% less than the electric multiple unit (EMU) equipment currently operating on the New Haven Line.

• New generation DMU tests on grades of 3% have proven to be effective in acceleration from a dead stop without wheel slippage. Grades only slightly greater than 1% are found on stretches of the Danbury Branch.

• Noise and pollution levels of DMU equipment has been tested and is less than conventional diesel locomotive hauled consist.

• DMU’s offer operational flexibility over conventional locomotive-hauled equipment.

History and Development of DMU’s

The precursor to the modern day DMU was the Budd Rail Diesel Cars (RDCs) in service throughout the US and Canada in the 40s, 50s and 60s. The original RDC was designed for rail service in low-density areas with relatively low ridership. The RDCs were very popular with railroads as a low-cost car for branch line operation - they were primarily used for short line service with relatively low passenger capacity. The earliest diesel powered unit train was the Budd-built Pioneer Zephyr, built in 1934. This was followed by a number of lightweight diesel unit trains. The more modern day DMU originated in 1949 and was built by the Budd Company as the RDC. Its primary characteristics were operator cab on each end, two Detroit Diesel 275 Hp (and later 300 Hp) engines for propulsion, connected to reversing Allison torque converter transmissions driving gear boxes on the inboard axles through cardan shafts, and the ability to operate alone or as Multiple Units (MU’s). One of the primary purposes of the RDC was to provide service in non-electrified territory, with performance suitable to schedules for electric MU cars with minimum capital and maintenance costs. Rail Historian J.W. Swanberg notes that RDCs were used on the Danbury Branch in the 1960s and 70s. The last RDC operation on Metro-North was in 1990 on the Waterbury branch.


5

. ”The New Haven's 40 RDC's were built 1952-1953 (not including the 1957 "Roger Williams" modified RDC trainset), but they weren't normally used on the Danbury branch until after the electrification was discontinued on the branch in the early 1960's. Two Danbury-Norwalk round trips per weekday were operated in (New Haven Rail Road) NHRR times, and one RDC was sufficient to cover this shuttle service. In post-NHRR years, SPV2000 car CDOT # 50 arrived in 1980 for Danbury branch service to replace the RDC, but it was unreliable, so either an RDC or a pull-pull trainset (an FL-9 on both ends of two coaches) often filled in on the shuttles. Later a pair of 1986-built Bombardier coaches was used for the shuttle with one FL-9 in push-pull mode.” Approximately 400 RDC units were produced by 1962, the year RDC production stopped. A few RDC’s are still in operation. The Trinity Railway Express, which operates service from Fort Worth to Dallas, still operates refurbished RDC equipment.

Figure 2.5.1 - RDC on Danbury Branch Line in Redding, CT on December 26, 1976. Photo courtesy of J.W. Swanberg

Figure 2.5.2 Trinity Railway Express Rail Diesel Cars (RDC) Photo Courtesy of Trinity Railway Express


6

There were several key drawbacks to the original RDC’s, primarily the lack of reliability and inability of the RDC to “limp home” in the event of engine failure. The low torque of the Allison transmission caused problems on severe grades. It was widely reported that even with both engines operating at maximum power, acceleration on steep grades was too slow, resulting in “hot” transmission shut down and the need to bring in a locomotive to help achieve the grade. Often, these breakdowns would occur fairly quickly after the RDC’s initial stall. Railroads replaced the Allison transmissions with other equipment to resolve this problem. From an aesthetic standpoint, however, the original RDC’s often operated with a thick mane of diesel smoke emanating from the center of the vehicle, leaving a less than favorable impression to onlookers. Despite certain operational problems, overall RDC’s were highly successful for the railroads that operated them. Most railroads claimed a return on investment with the RDC’s in the neighborhood of 25% - Budd demonstrated considerable cost reduction over conventional locomotive hauled trainsets. DMU’s, however, fell out of use in the 70s, being replaced by modern locomotives and coaches in a push-pull configuration. Today, Danbury Branch service involves push-pull operation, with a cab control car on one end and a locomotive on the other. At the end of the line, the engineer (driver of the train) can walk from either the locomotive or the cab car to the other end of the train and resume operations going in reverse direction, with no need for a turn around. In the mid-1990s, a new generation of DMU’s came under consideration in Europe and North America as once again rail and transit operators sought lower cost alternatives on short haul branch lines with lower levels of ridership. They were also considered for new light rail lines in low-density areas. Several studies examined the economic impacts of DMU’s, which showed costs were considerably lower than conventional locomotive sets, and that DMU’s were economically advantageous for consists with a capacity of less than 400-600 passengers. However, with FRA’s stricter American strength and safety standards established in 1999 (49CFR Part 238), no DMU’s were compliant and therefore could not operate on active freight lines without an FRA waiver, which are extremely difficult to obtain. Cost Effectiveness of DMU Equipment and Operations

A number of U.S. industry studies have been conducted within the past ten years that specifically examine the potential economics of Diesel Multiple Unit equipment and operations in comparison with traditional, locomotive hauled trainsets. This is relevant to the Danbury Branch line operations, which currently feature a consist typically of a Genesis locomotive and six coaches. . The first, conducted by Kenneth G. Sislak in 1996 for the American Public Transit Association (APTA) Rapid Transit Conference, estimates Connecticut DOT’s 1994 rail operating expense at nearly double the cost of a similar DMU service plan, with operating cost of $42.62 per mile versus $22.30 per mile for DMU service.


7

A second study by Daniel Jacobs and Ann Galbraith that examined Operations & Maintenance (O&M) costs of DMU’s versus conventional trainsets for the MBTA in Boston concludes that DMU’s have lower operating and maintenance costs than locomotive hauled trainsets. However, this is only true when comparing small consists (300-500 passenger capacity or less) - longer DMU consists prove to be less attractive financially than conventional locomotive hauled trainsets (with capacity greater than 500 passengers). The Triangle Transit Authority, when considering costs of DMU for their proposed 35-mile regional rail system, examined both capital costs and operating costs of DMU’s versus conventional equipment. A 4-car DMU is nearly $3 million more expensive than a locomotive with two coaches and a cab car ($12 million versus $9,140,000). However, annual fuel costs for the same consists showed a considerable savings for the DMU ($1,095,200 for the 4-car DMU versus $2,133,300 for the locomotive consist, based on 1 million train miles and 10,000 hours of idling. A 2-car DMU would only cost $547,600 annually). A 2003 study conducted by Stephen Richardson of Bombardier concludes that two married pairs of DMU with a 374-seat capacity would incur operating costs of $27.89 per miles over a 30-year life cycle at 50,000 annual miles. This is compared to $37.70 per mile for a push-pull configuration with 669 seats featuring an F40PH locomotive, five single level coaches and one cab car. Mr. Richardson concludes that DMUs can be effective where lower ridership levels are anticipated. The DMU costs are calculated based on actual experience of major European rail operators. DMU Vehicles

The Colorado Railcar In 2002, Colorado Railcar’s new single-level DMU was tested and became the first self-propelled commuter railcar to meet the new FRA standard. This had significant implications for commuter rail lines operating on existing freight lines. Much has been written recently about the Colorado Railcar, the new generation DMU tested and approved by FRA. The Colorado Railcar, manufactured in Fort Lupton, Colorado, just north of Denver, is powered by two 600 Hp Detroit Diesel Series 60 engines, which are similar to engines used on highway trucks. It utilizes a Voith hydrodynamic transmission, a significant improvement over the Allison transmissions in the old RDC's. The Voith transmission allows for easy stop and start, and the smaller Detroit Diesel 1200-HP engines make it possible to shut down and restart when the DMU is stationary, rather than the continuous idling required by conventional locomotives.


8

Advantages of the Colorado Railcar are its compliance with the new FRA strength and safety standards for mixed traffic operation, conformance with 2005 EPA emissions standards, and fuel savings. At the beginning of 2004, the Colorado Railcar was in revenue service on the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority’s (SFRTA, also known as Tri-Rail) P608 northbound service between Miami Airport and West Palm Beach (Mangonia Park). The service is part of the FRA and Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) DMU Demonstration project. Under this unique demonstration program, FRA agreed to pay $4 million and FDOT $4 million of the project’s $8 million capital costs. Such a demonstration program could be an option for Connecticut DOT for both the Danbury Branch and the possible extension to New Milford, as well as for the potential commuter rail service between Springfield, Hartford and New Haven. Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC has prepared a report presenting an option for the Danbury Branch to operate with their DMU’s. A copy of their report is appended to this section. A summary of the manufacturers claims include:

• DMU’s will meet the current schedule. • A significant, approximately 50% savings in fuel usage could be realized. • A 60% reduction in emissions is expected. • The DMU is 12 decibels quieter than a locomotive. • The Colorado Railcar would be expected to be more reliable due to the two

engines in each vehicle.

Figure 2.5.3 Colorado Railcar – Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Photo courtesy of Colorado Railcar


9

Bombardier Proposed FRA Compliant DMU Quoting from Stephen Richardson’s January 2004 TRB presentation, “…DMU product configuration would be based on the M-7 vehicle that is currently in revenue service as an Electric Mulitiple-Unit (EMU) for the Long Island Railroad. This vehicle would operate in a married pair configuration with consists up to 12 cars or 6 married pairs. Seating would be in a 3x2 configuration for a commuter application yielding 187 seats per married pair. The vehicle is to have capacity to serve both high and low boarding environments.”

Bombardier has supplied a light rail DMU for the NJT River Line. Although it operates on freight tracks, the services are separated by time of day and physically by track derails. Passenger service operates from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Through the establishment of the service separation; the DMU is not required to be FRA Compliant. The vehicle is in three sections, two passenger areas with a center power section. It is 102’ 6” long, 10’ 2” wide, weighs 121,000lbs, has a capacity of 90 seated and 184 with standees, and is ADA accessible. While not being FRA compliant would preclude use between South Norwalk and Danbury due to freight needs, such a vehicle could be considered for a possible extension north to New Milford where time separation is possible.

Figure 2.5.4- Bombardier FRA Compliant DMU –Bombardier DMU for NJT River Line Photo Courtesy of Thomas E. Frawley, P.E. Interfleet Technology


10

International DMU Equipment

The Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences has formed a subcommittee solely dedicated to studying and advancing existing research and sharing of information on Self-Powered Rail Car Technologies. As stated earlier, one of the issues of concern regarding this technology in the U.S. is U.S. crashworthiness standards established in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 238.203 (4): “A passenger rail car structure must be able to support a longitudinal static compressive load of 3.56 MN (800 kips) applied at the buff stops without permanent deformation.” 1 If the vehicle operates on the same track during the same time periods as other railroad trains, and if the empty vehicle weight is 800,000 pounds or greater (as in the case of most DMU’s) then the vehicle’s body structure must resist 400,000 pounds static end

1 In David C.Tyrell. “U.S. Rail Equipment Crashworthiness Standards” Paper presented at “What Can We Realistically Expect From Crash Worthiness? Improving Train Design to Withstand Future Accidents,” Institute of Mechanical Engineers Headquarters, London, England, May 2, 2001, p 4.

Figure 2.5.5 Bombardier Light Rail DMU on MJT River Line


11

loading without developing any permanent deformation in any member of the body structure. At the TRB Annual Meeting in January 2004, a review of European DMU technology revealed essentially three manufacturers of high-speed main-line and commuter rail DMU’s in European countries, with only two of them providing FRA compliant DMU’s. According to the report by Thomas Frawley of Interfleet Technology, the three manufacturers are Alstom, Siemens and Bombardier.

Siemens DMU Equipment The two Siemens DMU vehicles in service in Europe are the VT605 and the VT642. The VT605 in service between Munich and Nuremberg (shown below) is diesel-electric, reaches speeds of 125 mph, and has tilt suspension. At this time, there are no plans to make this equipment FRA compliant but its applicability otherwise is more than suitable to Northeast Corridor operating conditions.

Figure 2.5.6 - Siemens VT605 DMU – The Siemens VT642 is a diesel hydraulic, partial low-floor vehicle with top speed of 80 mph designed for service on the Oceanside-Escondido LRT line in California. Photo Courtesy of Thomas E. Frawley, P.E., Interfleet Technology


12

Currently in design is a diesel hydraulic FRA compliant DMU from Siemens called the Desiro with a 51” high floor similar to the Colorado Railcar. A sketch of this equipment is shown below.

Figure 2.5.7 - Siemens VT642 Desiro Classic Photo Courtesy Thomas E. Frawley, P.E.,Interfleet Technology

Figure 2.5.8 - Siemens Desiro FRA Drawing Courtesy of Thomas E. Frawley, P.E., Interfleet Technology


13

Alstom DMU Equipment Alstom, the French manufacturer of rail equipment including the locomotives used on the world famous TGV, currently has two DMU products. These are the LINT, a diesel hydraulic DMU capable of speeds of 75 mph (120 kph). It has partial low-floor capabilities and is more suitable for light rail type operations.

Figure 2.5.9 - Alstom LINT Photo Courtesy of Thomas E. Frawley, P.E., Interfleet Technology

Figure 2.5.10 - Alstom Lirex Photo Courtesy of Thomas E. Frawley, P.E., Interfleet Technology


14

The Alstom Lirex is of particular interest for the Danbury Branch because it is dual mode capable, which would make this equipment possible for use from Danbury all the way to Grand Central Terminal. However, currently none of the Alstom DMU’s are planned to be FRA compliant.

Current Use of DMU’s in the US South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) and Tri-Rail Experience with the Colorado Railcar The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) is purchasing two DMU’s (as of February 2004) and one intermediate coach as part of the FRA Demonstration program to determine viability and cost comparison of DMU consists versus the traditional locomotive hauled trainsets. The agreement with FRA requires Tri-Rail to operate six trips a day, five days a week, for 48 weeks out of 52 for a period of two years. In initial revenue service tests, the acceleration rates were good, according to Brad Barkman, Tri-Rail’s Chief Operating officer. Tri-Rail is also expecting considerable fuel savings. The cost for a single level DMU is $2.9 million. Tri-Rail expects to pay a total of $8 million for the rolling stock ($4 million of this is paid by FRA and $4 million by FDOT). One issue is the fact that Tri-Rail does not have high-level platforms at all of the 18 stations where stops are planned for the DMU’s. The 51” floor height of the DMU has caused them to use the intermediate cars with depressed floor levels for low-level platform service. All of their equipment under the grant is ADA compliant. In initial performance tests, the DMU was used to haul two coaches and was able to accelerate and maintain speeds without difficulty. Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) Plans for DMU Operations The TTA, a regional transit provider for the Triangle Region encompassing Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill, North Carolina, is in the process of implementing a 35-mile regional rail system that will feature 24 DMU’s in service with anticipated ridership of 28,000 passengers per day by 2025. As of February 2004, the project was entering Final Design and had received a recommended rating from the Federal Transit Administration’s New Starts program. Plans are for 16 stations along the route, which runs in parallel within the existing CSX freight railroad right-of-way. The primary impetus for selecting the DMU is its lower cost in comparison to the high cost of electrification – the system, while classified as commuter rail, will essentially run like a


15

light rail system, according to Thomas Janssen, project manager for the regional rail project. According to the project’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), DMU technology was selected because it offers “an attractive, cost-effective approach for operating in a freight railroad corridor. Because the Regional Rail project will share a corridor with operating freight and passenger railroads, the DMU’s for the Regional Rail project will be designed to comply with the structural requirements of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) regulations.” The Triangle Transit Authority DMU’s will be bi-directional, consisting of married pairs (two-car units) up to a maximum of four cars in length. The married pairs will be approximately 170 long, 10 feet in width and approximately 14.5 feet high. The project is of similar length and operating characteristics as the Danbury Branch and potential extension to New Milford. NJ Transit River Line

Figure 2.5.11 - NJT River Line


16

In March 2004, NJT opened the River Line light rail service between Trenton and Camden along the Delaware River. It is 34 miles in length utilizing and sharing freight tracks. The LRT operates from 6:00AM to 10:00 PM under temporal separation from freight. Also derails are installed to provide positive separation between the LRT and freight. The LRT vehicle used is Bombardier’s non FRA compliant DMU previously discussed. Since the line is a dedicated LRT service FRA compliance is not required. The primary benefit of the DMU from a cost perspective is its lower fuel and operating costs, but only when ridership levels dip below 500 per train.

2.5.1.2 Tilt Technology

In addition, tilt technology was investigated as part of the study. This type of technology, in which the coach car body tilts to adjust to the center of gravity at higher speeds on curves, is in use in Europe (originating in Sweden, as part of the X2000 rail service from Stockholm), and is now in service on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor Acela trains. Given that the Danbury Branch has a high percentage of curves, it initially seemed appropriate for the Branch line. However, as the Danbury Branch is not envisioned to be a high-speed rail line, in which speeds would exceed 100 mph, it quickly became apparent that tilt technology would be inappropriate. This was further confirmed in discussion with major commuter rail and transit operators in Europe and the U.S., who indicated it is only appropriate when speeds exceed 100 mph on rail lines with a high degree curves. 2.5.2 Traffic Control Systems for Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Given the high number of grade crossing gates on the Danbury Branch, the Study Team examined the applicability of Four-Quadrant gates as a possible innovative technology that could improve safety and help reduce travel times on the Branch Line and extension to New Milford. The existing grade crossings are:

• Branch line (South Norwalk to Danbury): 35 Grade Crossings • Maybrook Line (Danbury to Berkshire Junction): 2 Grade Crossings • Berkshire Line (Berkshire Junction to New Milford): 7 Grade Crossings

Four-Quadrant Gates Four – Quad Gates represent a new alternative in efforts to enhance safety at railroad grade crossings on lines with high-speed passenger trains and in special situations where it may be necessary to improve safety. During 1998 the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued an order that further defined the operating speeds over grade crossings in response to high speed rail operations on the Northeast Corridor, that now have


17

application to other rail lines. The order requires that the Federal Railroad Administration “set the maximum operating speed of 80 miles per hour over any highway-rail crossing where only conventional warning systems are in place and a maximum operating speed of 95 miles per hour where four-quadrant gates and presence detection are provided and tied into the signal system. This sets the speed between 80 and 95 miles per hour where Quad Gates can have an advantage. Grade crossings are prohibited on the Northeast Corridor if maximum operating speeds exceed 95 miles per hour.” The FRA requirements for improving highway – railroad grade crossing safety using the 1998 parameters are outlined as follows:

Installation of “Four – Quadrant Crossing Gates” represents a new technique for improving safety at grade crossings. Currently in the United States only 80 out of 247,000 grade crossings are equipped with this technology. Although a recent research by the Illinois Department of Transportation has found that on crossings where “Four – Quadrant Crossing Gates” have been added to existing crossings previously equipped with only flashing light protection, there was a 99-percent reduction in grade crossing motorist violations attempting to continue to travel over the crossing, once the warning apparatus was activated. In addition, the study found that on a crossing where the “Four – Quadrant Crossing Gates” were in use they achieved 99 percent motorist compliance in observing and obeying grade crossing traffic control measures. An important component however in using “Four – Quadrant Crossing Gates” to improve grade crossing safety is the examination of how the new system will be used at existing crossings. In determining if “Four – Quadrant Crossing Gates” are a viable option, perhaps the best place to start is defining the difference with normal grade crossing gates. Four Quadrant Gates are equipped with an additional pair of dual gate arms. Additional gate arms are lowered on each side of a bi-directional crossing. This prevents potential gate violators from driving around the gates because the rail/motor vehicle intersection is completely sealed off. The following exhibit demonstrates the placement of the grade crossing apparatus.

Special Considerations Active Warning / Barrier

with FRA Approval Grade Separated or Closure of Crossing

Controlled Accessed Highway Prohibited Prohibited Required

High Speed Rail

Required for all operations exceeding 79 mph

Required for all operations from 111 to 125 mph

All operations with operations exceeding 125 mph


18

In operation, the “Four – Quadrant Gates” are similar to normal grade crossing gates. During normal operation, the gates are lowered, thereby restricting motor vehicle traffic from entering the grade crossing. With a “Four – Quadrant Gate” installation, additional gates are installed in the lanes for the opposing traffic on each side of the crossing to prevent a driver from attempting to weave around the lower crossing gates and into the path of an oncoming train. With the application of gates to all quadrants of the grade crossing, potential violators are discouraged because the additional gates block the entire roadway. Essentially, there’s no practical way to “snake around” the gates as with the conventional crossings. Practical considerations are built into the design of the “Four – Quadrant Gate.” For example, the entrance gate is designed to fail in the down position, while the gate on the exiting side of the crossing for the direction of motor vehicle traffic is designed to fail in the up position, to prevent a motor vehicle from becoming trapped on the crossing in the path of rail traffic. In some cases a median island or a raised island with a vertical curb face is placed in the center of the roadway to provide an obstacle to prevent a vehicle from driving around the automatic crossing gate arm. This is recommended where gate arms are offset at a longer distance (wide roadway) making it possible for vehicles to drive between the entrance and exit gate arms. If the roadway is not wide enough to accommodate a median, delineators can be mounted directly to the roadway's centerline. Other “Four-Quadrant Gate” designs use an electronic vehicle detection circuit in the grade crossing to delay the lowering of the gate on the exit side of the crossing. This allows a motor vehicle to leave the crossing without being trapped between the crossing gates. In a further refinement of the use of the vehicle detection circuit in the grade crossing, a link has been established with the railroad signal system such that that the line signal system will display “STOP” for train traffic when a vehicle is detected within the grade crossing after the gates have lowered. In most cases the timing of the exit gates are sequenced to allow time for

Figure 2.5.12 - Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation


19

vehicles to leave the crossing, even as the gates on the entrance side of the crossing lower to restrict motor vehicle traffic. In determining where a Four-Quadrant Gate would have the most beneficial impact on rail/motor vehicle safety, the following criteria has been established by the State of Illinois for their improvement project for high speed rail service on the Chicago – St. Louis Corridor.

• Crossings on four-lane undivided highways • Crossings with two or more tracks, separated by a space large enough to

accommodate one or more motor vehicles between the tracks. • Crossings with large variations in the approach speed of trains, such as lines

where freight and passenger trains operating on the line, used different maximum speeds

• Crossings with consistent gate-arm violations • Crossing with continuing accident occurrences • Crossing where the motor vehicle – train collisions pose a potential safety issue,

such as: Crossings with a large volume of motor vehicles carrying hazardous

materials. Crossings with a large number of school buses Crossings with a large number of heavy vehicles, such as tractor-trailers. Crossings with High Speed Trains

Building from this criteria, it is necessary to determine additional conditions where Four-Quadrant Gate crossings may actually reduce safety for motorists, as follows:

• Introduction of the gate on the exiting side of the crossing may create driver indecision, such as an intersection adjoining the crossing, and may lead to a motor vehicle being trapped on the crossing.

• The distance between multiple tracks may have an impact on the delayed timing of the exit gate.

• The topography of the grade crossing may impact the safe operation of motor vehicles over the crossing, in cases where the railroad track structure is at a higher profile than the street on both sides of the crossing.

• Possible impacts such as a more hazardous environment for tractor-trailers and other vehicles transporting hazardous materials.

Finally, in determining the installation of “Four – Quadrant Gates” these additional factors should be considered:

• Improvements to the operation that the installation of “Four – Quadrant Gates” will:

Allow the operation of trains at speeds greater than 79 miles per hour


20

Enhance safety on the line by reducing the number of motor vehicle violations and incidents

• Determine the installation by using the site analysis criteria, including Will the speed of trains being increased over the crossing? Will the level of motor vehicle traffic in the future be increasing? Will the number of trains operating over the grade crossing be increasing?

• Establish any possible negative impacts the installation of “Four – Quadrant Gates” may have on both railroad and motor vehicle safety.

In reviewing the installation of “Four – Quadrant Gates” for the improvement of operating conditions over lines with grade crossings, although there have been some positive success stories such as the Blue Line to Long Beach in Los Angeles, their installation needs to be reviewed on a case by case basis. At the present time further data and research is being gathered from test projects at School Street crossing in Mystic, Connecticut, Wales Street in Abington, Massachusetts to evaluate the effectiveness of improving grade crossing safety with “Four – Quadrant Gates” Given that future planned speeds on the Branch will not exceed 80 miles per hour, there is no significant time saving advantage to installing Quad Gate crossings. However, as new information becomes available on the performance record of Quad Gates, it may be determined to be a significant safety enhancement to the Branch. 2.5.3 Service/Operations Skip-Stop Service and Express Service

Skip – Stop Service and Schedules In application of “Skip-Stop” or “A – B” stopping patterns to commuter line, the goal is improving trip times for passengers on the route that are normally operating with a single track, where the opportunity for operating express trains with overtakes is not possible without the construction of additional main tracks or sidings. Factors that support the introduction of “skip-stop” schedules: • Close proximity of stations, normally less than one mile. • Is used on lines because of close station spacing trains are not achieving their

maximum operating speed between stops. • Fairly equal distribution of passengers at stations on the route • Sufficient volume of frequencies at all stations to compensate for some trains now

bypassing stations, previously served by a line operated with full service. • Service is equally distributed to all stations • Reduced overall trip times for passengers achieved by:

Eliminating dwell time for stations that are now bypassed in the new stopping pattern


21

Trains operating for a longer distance between stops at a higher average speed.

Normally for high ridership levels a railway would look to institute a staggered “Skip-Stop” pattern as shown in Example “A,” over during a peak period would alternate trains using the “Skip-Stop” patterns with full locals to protect passengers traveling between intermediate stations on the line. A prime factor in developing this type of schedule pattern, which each train. Another option would be to anchor the service pattern with train serving all stations and then use the “skip-stop” during the middle of the peak service period. Generally “Skip-Stop” patterns are used in the morning peak period, which tend to have a shorter duration in time and higher concentrations of passengers, with afternoon trains making all stops on the route. Easier for passenger to plan trips returning home.

Example “A”

Train # 100 102 104 106 108 110 Stations Afton Bristol Chelsea Devon Exeter Fulton Grover Hingham Ipswich Jenkins

X - - - X

- - - X

- - - X

- - - X X

X X

- - - X

- - - X

- - - X

- - - X

X X X X X X X X X X

X - - - X

- - - X

- - - X

- - - X X

X X

- - - X

- - - X

- - - X

- - - X

X X X X X X X X X X

“Skip-Stop” patterns have been used on SEPTA’s – Market Street route and in the Bronx on certain New York City Transit routes. In the area of commuter train operations New Jersey Transit used this type of schedule on the Boonton Line for almost thirty years, prior to the construction of the Montclair Connection in 2002. Examples of NJT’s schedules, which used “Skip-Stop” pattern in the mid-point of the rush hour, are shown in Examples “B, C & D” which give an overview of the trip timesavings using “Skip-Stop” patterns.


22

Example “B”

Reviewing this schedule shows that the trains using the “skip-stop” pattern primarily east of Mountain View were able to achieve a reduced total trip time over both end points of the route from 44 minutes a trip with limited stopping on the route to 39 minutes, saving five (5) minutes. One factor that railway companies need to overcome in the use of “skip-stop” schedules is the passenger's perception of what is the greatest benefit. Do they perceive that overall reduced trips times are a greater benefit than having multiple boarding locations? In terms of the Danbury Branch service, during the first round of public meetings in the Fall, 2003, a number of existing branch line users stated they would prefer shorter travel time rather than more stops. More information is needed to determine the preference. However, even if passengers state a preference for skip stop service, the difficulty for the railroad is to determine which station stops to skip. In the next example, two years later company officials, reacting to demands from passengers, added more stops to the first pattern, along with expanding the area using the “skip-stop” pattern to the full length of the route, developing a fuller “skip-stop” pattern during the mid-point of the morning service period. In this case a train serving all stations making all stops covers the route in 1’15” (Train #1000 – average speed 30.4 mph) by comparison to 67” (Train #1004 – average speed 34.5 mph) saving eight (8) minutes. It needs to be recognized that in the area from Great Notch to Glen Ridge

10/30/1966 – Boonton Line


23

station spacing range from 1 mile to 0.5 miles, so the “skip-stop” pattern helps improve average train speed Example “C”

Later in time, in response to passenger suggestions the “skip-stop” pattern was reorganized to offer greater service selections to passengers on the route. This timetable shows Train #1050 (average train speed 30.0 mph) covering the route in 77 minutes from Dover to Hoboken, as compared to 69 minutes for Train #1000 (average train speed 33.4) still saving only 8 minutes. Distances from Dover to Hoboken 38.5 miles, Mountain View to Hoboken 21.2 miles.

04/28/1968 – Boonton Line


24

Example “D”

One factor that should be recognized in reviewing the schedule in Exhibit D is that the trains are operating over the route with headways ranging from 8 to 15 minute headways during the period when the “skip-stop” pattern is being used. As additional information during the morning peak period the line is producing 4,400 seats as shown in Example “E” with an average daily ridership of approximately 7,200 passengers. Example “E”

Train Number

Inventory of Seats Available

1050 1052 1000 1054 1002 1004 1056 1006 1056 1030

500 600 400 500 500 400 400 400 300 400

In discussing the application of “Skip-Stop” service pattern to the Danbury Branch, first we need to start with the existing schedule.

04/28/1985 - Boonton Line


25

Example “F”

General Observations:

• The route has only five morning frequencies of which: 3 operate directly to Grand Central Terminal 2 operate in shuttle service between Danbury and Stamford, with a

connection to New York City. • The distance between stations is 3.4 miles, which allows the train (under normal

condition) to attain the maximum speed of the line. • Headways between frequencies on the route is 35 minutes

Instituting a “Skip-Stop” pattern to the Danbury Branch would require introduction of additional frequencies (operating at the minimum at least two additional frequencies) to protect existing service levels. Increasing service on the route would require the assignment of further locomotives and equipment with more operating personnel, requiring a greater capital investment and resulting in higher operating costs. Failure to increase service on the branch would have a negative impact on the quality of service as perceived by the existing passengers in these areas: Substituting "Skip-Stop service would increase the schedule headways at stations most likely from 35 minutes to close to one hour in the morning service period. Substituting "Skip-Stop service would reduce the overall number of schedule frequencies at each station on the route in the morning from five to three. Introduction of a “skip-stop” pattern on this branch without the increasing the levels of service, to maintain the same amount of stops in the morning at each station for the passengers, would be perceived as deterioration of the service quality, downplaying any benefit from any reduced trip times. In addition any investment in additional equipment and operating costs would need to be offset with the ability of the line to attract a greater volume of ridership, which it is doubtful that the time savings offered by instituting a “skip-stop” pattern would be able to achieve.


26

Bibliography Kenneth G. Sislak. “Economics of Diesel Multiple Unit Operations” in Proceedings of the 1996 Rapid Transit Conference of the American Public Transit Association, pp 81-87. Christina Rader. “Economics of FRA-Compliant Diesel Multiple Units (DMU's)” in Proceedings of the 2003 Rapid Transit Conference of the American Public Transit Association. Daniel Jacobs and Ann Galbraith. “A comparison of the Operating and Maintenance Costs of DMU and Locomotive-Hauled Equipment for the MBTA” in Proceedings of the 1997 Rapid Transit Conference of the American Public Transit Association, vol. 2, pp 157-166. Jerome R. Pier, P.E. “A Short History of the Rail Diesel Multiple Unit Car in North America” in Transportation Matters published for the Coalition of Northeast Governors, Volume 2, Number 1, May 1996. Amtrak Bureau of Rolling Stock Engineering. Presentation on Amtrak RDC Car New Equipment Acquisition of Rail Diesel Cars. August 27, 2003.2000. William D. Middleton. “What’s happened to the diesel railcar revival?” in Railway Age, July 2000 online edition. Stephen Richardson. The Economics of Commuter Rail Alternatives: A Comparative Cost Perspective. Strategy and Product Planning Bombardier Transportation North America, September 2003. David C.Tyrell. “U.S. Rail Equipment Crashworthiness Standards” Paper presented at “What Can We Realistically Expect From Crash Worthiness? Improving Train Design to Withstand Future Accidents,” J.W. Swanberg, Correspondence with Danbury Branch Study Team, March 25, 2004.

TD-04.009 – Initial Release 9 March 2004

CRM DMU Modeling for Danbury Branch

Prepared by: Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC 1011 14th Street Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 303-857-1066

Prepared for: Steve Gazillo, AICP Vice President, Senior Project Manager Washington Group International, Inc. 30 Christian Lane Newington, CT 06111

This document is the property of Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC. It must not be made public, copied, or used in any way detrimental to our interests. Copies of this document may not be provided to third parties without express written permission of Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC.

CRM DMU Modeling for Danbury Branch TD-04.009

Colorado Railcar Manufacturing 9 March 2004 Page 1 of 46

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................2 2. Organization of Results........................................................................................................3 3. Conclusions............................................................................................................................3

3.1. Travel Time ......................................................................................................................3 3.2. Fuel Economy ..................................................................................................................4 3.3. Maintenance and Fuel Cost ...........................................................................................4 3.4. Emissions..........................................................................................................................4 3.5. Noise..................................................................................................................................4 3.6. Reliability..........................................................................................................................4 3.7. Capital Cost ......................................................................................................................5

4. Modeled Consists..................................................................................................................5 4.1. Off-Peak Consists Compared ........................................................................................6 4.2. Peak Consists Compared ...............................................................................................7 4.3. Alternate DMU Consists Modeled ...............................................................................7

5. Modeled Route ......................................................................................................................8 6. Assumptions..........................................................................................................................8

6.1. Performance Modeling Assumptions...........................................................................8 6.2. Emissions and Economic Modeling Assumptions .....................................................9

7. Detailed Results...................................................................................................................12 7.1. Travel Time ....................................................................................................................12 7.2. Fuel Consumption.........................................................................................................15 7.3. Maintenance Cost ..........................................................................................................17 7.4. Fuel and Maintenance Cost .........................................................................................19 7.5. Emissions........................................................................................................................21 7.6. Capital Cost ....................................................................................................................23 7.7. Speed Profile ..................................................................................................................23 7.8. Maintenance Cost Calculations...................................................................................26 7.9. Emissions Calculations.................................................................................................27

Attachment A: Schedule for Danbury Branch……………………………………………….29 Attachment B: CRM DMU Noise Data……………………………………………………….32 Attachment C: Reliability and Events Resulting in Diabled DMU Consists……………..38 Attachment D: Danbury Line Ridership……………………………………………………..41



1. INTRODUCTION

At the request of Washington Group International, Inc. Colorado Railcar Manufacturing

(CRM) has developed performance data, environmental data, and economic data for the

Colorado Railcar Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU). The data provided here are estimates of these

costs for the specific service described below.

Travel times, fuel consumption, emissions, noise, maintenance costs, and capital costs

are modeled for several DMU and locomotive-hauled consists traveling between Stamford,

South Norwalk and New Milford. Our results are based on a set of assumptions about

station stops, track standards, rolling stock characteristics and operating characteristics.

Travel times for DMU consists are modeled between South Norwalk and New Milford and

compared to the current schedule for locomotive-hauled consists between South Norwalk

and Danbury (see Attachment A for the current schedule). Emissions, noise, maintenance

costs, fuel costs, and capital costs for the DMU consists are estimated for extended service

between Stamford and New Milford, and are compared with our best estimates of these data

for the average passenger locomotive consist.

We find that DMU consists have comparable travel times to locomotive consists and

that substantial decreases in travel time between South Norwalk and New Milford cannot be

achieved by simply changing rolling stock technology; track improvements are necessary for

dramatic reductions in travel time. These improvements, however, could possibly be paid

for in part with the nearly $1 million annual maintenance and fuel cost savings generated by

the DMU technology. Alternatively, the DMUs’ 37 percent lower maintenance and fuel costs

could help finance the cost of more frequent service. DMU consists also offer the Danbury

Branch 61 percent lower emissions, 75 percent less noise, and better reliability than

locomotive consists.



2. ORGANIZATION OF RESULTS

This document first presents conclusions from the modeling analysis. Then, we describe the

fleet and consists modeled, the route modeled, assumptions in the modeling, and detailed

results. Attachment A shows the current schedule for Danbury to New Milford service.

Attachment B contains a technical report on the DMU’s noise. Attachment C gives a

description of the DMU’s reliability and the handful of events that could disable it, and

Attachment D contains data on current ridership on the Danbury Branch.

3. CONCLUSIONS

3.1. Travel Time

The recommended DMU consists are fast enough to meet the current schedule. These

consists can make the round trip between Danbury and South Norwalk in 93 to 94 minutes,

depending on the consist. This is up 1 minute faster than the fastest current schedule and up

to 19 minutes faster than slowest current schedule. The theoretical minimum round-trip

running time between Danbury and South Norwalk is only 7 minutes shorter than the times

DMU consists can achieve. (Theoretical minimum running time is the time that would be

achieved if the train ran at track speed at all times.)

Consists made up entirely of DMUs complete the round-trip between Danbury and

New Milford within one minute of a locomotive-hauled consist.

Consists with a two to one ratio of DMUs to coaches complete the round-trip between

Danbury and New Milford within two minutes of a locomotive-hauled consist.

Consists with a one to one ratio of DMUs to coaches complete the round-trip between

Danbury and New Milford within four minutes of a locomotive-hauled consist, but may still

be a preferred option due to their superior economics, as described in the detailed results.

The theoretical minimum running time on the extended line between New Milford

and South Norwalk is 2 hours and 15 minutes, round trip. CRM DMU consists can travel



between South Norwalk and New Milford in between 2 hours 22 minutes and 2 hours 27

minutes, round trip.

3.2. Fuel Economy

The DMU fleet could save more than 250,000 gallons annually, based on extended service

between Stamford and New Milford at the current frequency of 10 weekday round trips and

6 weekend round trips. This is a 55 percent fuel savings over locomotive-hauled service.

3.3. Maintenance and Fuel Cost

The DMU fleet could save $1 million on annual maintenance and fuel costs, based on

Stamford to New Milford service at the current frequency. This is a 37 percent savings.

Maintenance costs include preventative maintenance, unscheduled repairs, FRA inspections,

an overhaul reserve, cleaning, and servicing.

3.4. Emissions

DMU consists emit at least 61 percent less pollution than locomotive-hauled consists on the

Danbury branch, assuming the current schedule with Stamford to New Milford service. That

is an annual saving of 40,000 pounds of pollution.

3.5. Noise

The Colorado Railcar DMU emits 25 percent of the noise of a locomotive-hauled consist.

Passby tests have shown that the DMU is 12 decibels quieter than a locomotive, which is

equivalent to a 75 percent decrease in the perceived sound level. For details, see Attachment

B, CRM document TD-02.003 Revision A, “CRM DMU Noise Data.”

3.6. Reliability

DMUs deliver a more reliable service than locomotive-hauled consists. DMUs have

redundant propulsion packages (which include the engine, transmission, charge air cooler,



and cooling pump). This allows the DMU to “limp home” with only a few minutes delay in

the event that a propulsion package is disabled. A disabled locomotive does not have this

ability and will instead result in stranded passengers and will delay all other traffic until the

locomotive is rescued. Attachment C discusses reliability and disabled DMU consists in

more detail.

3.7. Capital Cost

The DMU fleet costs only 3 percent more to purchase than the locomotive-hauled fleet, which

is a difference of slightly over $1 million. This cost difference can be paid back with less than

one and a half years of fuel and maintenance savings (which amount to $1 million per year).

Additionally, an off peak DMU consist, or “shuttle” consist, costs 43 percent less to purchase

than the locomotive-hauled shuttle train and saves $240,000 annually on fuel and

maintenance per consist. One way for Connecticut DOT to free up equipment for the New

Haven line would be to run DMUs for the shuttle consists and move the current equipment

to the New Haven line.

4. MODELED CONSISTS

The modeled fleets contain enough consists to provide 10 weekday round trips between New

Milford and Stamford on approximately the current schedule serving the current ridership.

This requires a fleet of at least 6 consists:

• 2 “off-peak consists” or “shuttle consists” with seating capacity of 100 (in 3x2 seating)

to serve the remainder of the trips during the day and weekend

• 3 “peak consists” with seating capacity of 300 (in 3x2 seating) to serve the 3 most

heavily-used morning and evening peak trips

• 1 spare consist (a peak-type consist)



Because the schedule has 5 morning trains leaving during a 2 ½ hour period and a

round trip requires at least 3 hours, all five trains are required for the morning trips, and

likewise in the evening.

The ridership figures used for to determine the consists reccomended above are

provided in Attachment D. We have also modeled alternative DMU consists that could meet

Danbury’s needs if ridership were to increase from the numbers above.

The locomotive in the model has two different data sources. For performance

modeling, the data comes from a Genesis. For economic modeling, data comes from F-40s.

Note that DMU consists are identified below with numbers; locomotive consists with

letters.

4.1. Off-Peak Consists Compared

Consist 1: One Single-Level DMU, approx. 115 seats at 3x2 seating

Consist A: One Locomotive, One Single-Level Trailer Car, and One Single-Level Cab Car,

approx. 230 seats at 3x2 seating



4.2. Peak Consists Compared

Consist 2: Two Single-Level DMUs and One Single-Level Trailer Car, approx. 352 seats at

3x2 seating

Consist B: One Locomotive, Two Single-Level Trailer Cars, and One Single-Level Cab Car,

approx. 345 seats at 3x2 seating

4.3. Alternate DMU Consists Modeled

Consist 3: Two Single-Level DMUs, approx. 230 seats at 3x2 seating

Consist 4: One Single-Level DMU and One Single-Level Cab Car, approx. 235 seats at 3x2

seating

Consist 5: Two Single-Level DMUs and Two Single-Level Trailer Cars, approx. 475 seats at

3x2 seating



5. MODELED ROUTE

The route was modeled from track charts provided by Washington Group International, Inc.

from Metro North and Housatonic Railroads. The track charts provided grade, curvature,

and speed limits between South Norwalk and Berkshire Junction. However, track charts for

Berkshire Junction to New Milford did not provide grade, curvature, or speed limits. At the

direction of Washington Group International, Inc., the track in this area was assumed to be

level, tangent, and have a speed limit of 50 miles per hour.

6. ASSUMPTIONS

6.1. Performance Modeling Assumptions

1. Track profile from Metro North and Housatonic Railroads, no document name or date available. (Figure 1 describes the route profile from South Norwalk to New Milford in both grade and elevation.)

2. Mileposts assumed to be 5,280 feet apart.

3. Track speed limit of 50 mph unless superceded by track charts.

4. Single-level DMU loaded weight of 180,345 lbs.

5. Single-level CRM cab car loaded weight of 156,005 lbs.

6. Single-level CRM trailer car loaded weight of 156,170 lbs.

7. Locomotive loaded weight of 267,330 lbs.

8. Single-level locomotive-hauled cab car loaded weight of 107,520 lbs.

9. Single-level locomotive-hauled trailer car loaded weight of 112,860 lbs.

10. DMU performance as defined in CRM document TD-02.002, “CRM DMU Performance Data,” all engines fully operational.

11. DMU performance not degraded for altitude or service wear.

12. Consists accelerate at full power and brake at full service rate to follow posted track speed profile. Braking is performed before changes in speed limit to match profile.



13. DMU consists assumed to brake consistently at 2.0 mphps.

14. Locomotive consists assumed to brake consistently at 2.0 mphps

15. Station dwell times of 60 seconds at all intermediate stops.

16. All travel times rounded to the nearest second.

17. Actual consist performance will vary from predicted results due to driver attentiveness, maintenance practices, and varying track and climate conditions.

18. Clearances between Stamford and New Milford will be consistent with Metro North Railroad’s operating rules for Stamford to Norwalk, which have a 15’ 6” vertical car restriction.

6.2. Emissions and Economic Modeling Assumptions

1. Ridership on the first three morning peak trains is 300 people, and likewise for three of the evening peak trains. Ridership on all other trains, including weekend trains, is fewer than 100 people.

2. All trains will run from New Milford to Stamford, a round-trip distance of 92.66 miles.

3. Trains require approximately 3 hours to complete the round-trip between New Milford and Stamford.

4. Trains will operate at approximately the same times and frequencies as the current schedule:

• 10 daily round trips on weekdays

• 6 daily round trips on weekends

• 5 trains will depart southbound on morning peaks between approximately 5:30 AM and 8:00 AM. Note that a round trip requires 3 hours, but there are only 2 ½ hours in this morning peak window, so no trains will be able to make the round trip in time to run a second peak trip. Therefore, 5 different train sets will be required to offer this service. The situation for the evening peak is similar.

5. Five consists are required for daily revenue service (as described above)



• Three of these consists must have capacity for 300 passengers, which can be accomplished with either a consist of 2 DMUs and a trailer, or a locomotive with two coaches and a cab car.

• The other 2 consists must have capacity for 100 passengers. This can be provided by a single DMU or a locomotive with a coach and a cab car. (We assume two coaches are required for the locomotive-hauled consist to ensure adequate braking.)

6. One consist is required as a spare. This consist will either have 2 DMUs and a trailer or a locomotive, 2 coaches, and a cab car. Note that we have not assumed 2 locomotive spares, which may be more practical, given locomotives’ more time-consuming maintenance.

7. The fleet will therefore have a total of 6 consists, with either 8 DMUs and 4 trailers or 6 locomotives and 14 coaches.

8. Each vehicle will travel 50,000 miles per year on average, calculated as follows: With 10 weekday round trips and 6 weekend round trips between Stamford and New Milford, the service will have 3,224 annual round trips of 92.66 miles each, for a total of 298,736 annual service miles. With a fleet of 6 consists, that means that each consist will travel on average 50,000 miles per year, and therefore each vehicle will travel 50,000 miles per year on average.



Figure 1. Route Profile from South Norwalk to New Milford

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Mile Post

Ele

vati

on

(ft

)

-7.0

-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

Gra

de (

% g

rad

e)

Elevation Grade



7. DETAILED RESULTS

Results are presented below for travel time, fuel consumption, maintenance and fuel

cost, emissions, and capital cost. At the end of this section is an explanation of our

calculations for maintenance cost and emissions.

7.1. Travel Time

Table 1 presents estimated travel times between New Milford and South Norwalk. The

column “min.” gives the minimum theoretical travel time, which is the fastest time that could

be achieved if the consists could perfectly match the speed limit profile. Any deviation

between ideal and actual time is due to acceleration and deceleration. The consist numbers

given here correspond with the consist numbers given in section 4, and the locomotive

consists are shaded in gray. The two columns on the far right labeled “schedule” provide

arrival times from the current Metro North Railroad schedule for locomotive-hauled service

between South Norwalk and Danbury. Because the Metro North schedule was not consistent

throughout the day, the fastest and slowest scheduled times are provided.

Conclusions from Table 1:

1. The DMU consists run as quickly on the Danbury branch as the current schedule.

2. The theoretical minimum running time between Danbury and South Norwalk is 86 minutes round trip. This time assumes that the consist operates at the maximum track speed at all times—in other words, the consists accelerate and decelerate instantaneously to track speed.

3. The DMU consists can make the round trip between Danbury and South Norwalk in 93 to 96 minutes, depending on the consist. This is up 1 minute faster than the fastest current schedule and up to 19 minutes faster than slowest current schedule. The theoretical minimum round-trip running time between Danbury and South Norwalk is only 7 minutes shorter than the times DMU consists can achieve.

4. The theoretical minimum running time on the extended line between New Milford and South Norwalk is 2 hours and 15 minutes, round trip. CRM DMU consists can



travel between South Norwalk and New Milford in between 2 hours 22 minutes and 2 hours 27 minutes, round trip.



Table 1. Travel Time

Note: Times listed are arrival times. Theoretical minimum travel time is the travel time if the train could perfectly match the speed limit profile. Schedule from Metro North Railroad Schedule (effective April 27 - October 25, 2003) for Danbury Branch, included at Attachment A. For southbound schedule, arrival time at Danbury (0:24:24) is based on the performance of the best DMU consist to allow fair comparison of DMU arrivals at all subsequent stations.



7.2. Fuel Consumption

Table 2 compares fuel consumption for round trip travel between New Milford, South

Norwalk, and Stamford. The figures presented here include the fuel used by the HEP

generator during travel time but do not include any additional idling or use outside of the

stated time of travel. The locomotive in this model is a Genesis locomotive. The current off-

peak trains run with 2 FL9s, which would likely have greater total fuel consumption than the

Genesis shown here. Round trip fuel consumption and fuel economy are based on the

performance modeling for South Norwalk to New Milford. Total annual fuel consumption is

based on an extended route to Stamford, which would result in each consist traveling 50,000

miles annually. We have assumed that South Norwalk to New Milford fuel consumption is a

fair representation of Stamford to New Milford fuel consumption.



Table 2. Fuel Consumption

• The proposed fleet of DMUs would use 55 percent less fuel than the fleet of locomotive-hauled consists, which is an annual saving of 250,000 gallons of fuel.

• In the off-peak, the single DMU consist (Consist 1) uses 76 percent less fuel than the locomotive consist (Consist A) and would have more than sufficient seating capacity for current ridership, which is well below 100 passengers per train.

• In the peak, DMU Consist 2 (two DMUs with a trailer) uses 46 percent less fuel than the locomotive consist (Consist B) and would have more than sufficient seating capacity for current ridership, which is about 300 passengers per train.

• If ridership were projected to increase, the alternate DMU Consists 3 and 4 would use 54 percent less fuel than locomotive Consist A (the 2-coach consist) and would provide the same number of seats as the locomotive consist. DMU Consist 5 would use 27 percent less fuel than locomotive consist B (the 3-coach locomotive consist) and provide 38 percent more seats.

• The figures above do not include fuel consumed during stationary idling. Locomotives often idle overnight, burning substantial amounts of fuel and annoying neighbors. The DMU can be easily shut down at night and restarted in the morning, or if overnight power is needed, plugged into wayside power or run on a quiet, efficient generator. This results in significant additional fuel savings.



7.3. Maintenance Cost

Table 3 compares annual maintenance costs for round trip travel between New Milford and

Stamford. Maintenance costs include preventative maintenance, unscheduled repairs, FRA

inspections, a reserve for overhauls, cleaning, and servicing. The locomotive costs in this

model are based on an F-40 locomotive because F-40 data is most readily available and

should still be representative of the locomotives currently in use. Each piece of rolling stock

is estimated to travel approximately 50,000 miles per year, based on a fleet of 6 consists for

the 10 daily round trips between New Milford and Stamford. Locomotives are estimated to

cost $140,000 per year in maintenance costs, DMUs $110,000, and coaches $80,000. See the

end of this section for an explanation of maintenance cost calculations for each piece of

rolling stock.



Table 3. Maintenance Cost

Annual Maintenance Cost, Based on 50,000 Annual Miles

• The proposed fleet of DMUs would cost 33 percent less annually to maintain than the fleet of locomotive-hauled consists, which is an annual saving of $700,000.

• For the off-peak, the single DMU consist (Consist 1) costs 63 percent less to maintain than the locomotive consist (Consist A) and would have more than sufficient seating capacity for current ridership, which is well below 100 passengers per train.

• For the peak, DMU Consist 2 (two DMUs with a trailer) costs 21 percent less to maintain than the locomotive consist (Consist B) and would have more than sufficient seating capacity for current ridership, which is about 300 passengers per train.

• If ridership were projected to increase, the alternate DMU Consists 3 and 4 would cost 27 percent to 37 percent less to maintain than locomotive Consist A (the 2-coach consist) and would provide the same number of seats as the locomotive consist. DMU Consist 5 would cost the same to maintain as locomotive consist B (the 3-coach locomotive consist) but would provide 38 percent more seats.



7.4. Fuel and Maintenance Cost

Table 4 compares the total annual fuel and maintenance costs for round trip travel between

New Milford and Stamford. Maintenance costs are calculated as described above, and fuel

costs use the total annual gallons calculated above at a cost of $1 per gallon.



Table 4. Fuel and Maintenance Cost

Annual Fuel and Maintenance Cost, Based on 50,000 Annual Miles

• The proposed fleet of DMUs would cost 37 percent less annually to maintain than the fleet of locomotive-hauled consists, which is an annual saving of almost $1 million.

• For the off-peak, the single DMU consist (Consist 1) costs 66 percent less in fuel and maintenance than the locomotive consist (Consist A) and would have more than sufficient seating capacity for current ridership, which is well below 100 passengers per train.

• For the peak, DMU Consist 2 (two DMUs with a trailer) costs 26 percent less in fuel and maintenance than the locomotive consist (Consist B) and would have more than sufficient seating capacity for current ridership, which is about 300 passengers per train.

• If ridership were projected to increase, the alternate DMU Consists 3 and 4 would cost 32 percent to 40 percent less in fuel and maintenance than locomotive Consist A (the 2-coach consist) and would provide the same number of seats as the locomotive consist. DMU Consist 5 would cost 5 percent less in fuel and maintenance than the locomotive consist B (the 3-coach locomotive consist) and would provide 38 percent more seats.



7.5. Emissions

Table 5 compares emissions during round trip travel between New Milford and Stamford.

The emissions numbers include emissions by the prime movers but not from HEP generators

or any additional idling or use outside of the stated time of travel. Emissions by the CRM

DMU are based on certification data from Detroit Diesel and EPA standards, and emissions

from the Genesis are estimated at EPA’s projections of what a locomotive produced in 2005

will emit. See the end of this section for an explanation of emissions calculations.



Table 5. Emissions Annual Emissions (pounds)

• The proposed fleet of DMUs would emit 61 percent less annually than the fleet of locomotive-hauled consists, which is an annual saving of over 40,000 pounds of emissions.

• For the off-peak, the single DMU consist (Consist 1) emits 78 percent less than the locomotive consist (Consist A) and would have more than sufficient seating capacity for current ridership, which is well below 100 passengers per train.

• For the peak, DMU Consist 2 (two DMUs with a trailer) emits 54 percent less than the locomotive consist (Consist B) and would have more than sufficient seating capacity for current ridership, which is about 300 passengers per train.

• If ridership were projected to increase, the alternate DMU Consists 3 and 4 would emit 51 percent to 63 percent less than locomotive Consist A (the 2-coach consist) and would provide the same number of seats as the locomotive consist. DMU Consist 5 would emit 41 percent less than the locomotive consist B (the 3-coach locomotive consist) and would provide 38 percent more seats.

• If the locomotive used were a current vehicle or a slightly older vehicle, you would see dramatically greater emissions savings with DMUs than the comparison above for the 2005 locomotive, as stricter standards are just being implemented for locomotives in 2005.



7.6. Capital Cost

Table 6 compares capital costs for consists for round trip travel between New Milford and

Stamford. The locomotive cost is assumed to be $2.5 million, the locomotive-hauled coaches

$1.3 million, the DMU $2.9 million, and the Colorado Railcar coaches $2 million. These are

our estimates of the costs to purchase new vehicles. Note that purchase prices for Genesis

locomotives are substantially higher than those given here for the average locomotive.

7.7. Speed Profile

Figure 2 provides a sample plot of consist speed over the route. The consists can quickly

achieve and maintain the speed limits throughout the route.



Table 6. Capital Cost ($)

• The proposed fleet of DMUs would cost 3 percent more to purchase than the fleet of locomotive-hauled consists, which is an incremental cost of slightly more than $1 million. This cost difference would be paid back with less than one and a half years of operating costs savings, (which are $1 million annually).

• For the off-peak, the single DMU consist (Consist 1) costs 43 percent less to purchase than the locomotive consist (Consist A), which is a saving of $2.2 million. On top of the 43 percent capital cost savings, Consist 1 will save 66 percent on fuel and maintenance costs, or $240,000 per consist per year. Consist 1 would have more than sufficient seating capacity for current ridership, which is well below 100 passengers per train.

• For the peak, DMU Consist 2 (two DMUs with a trailer) costs 22 percent more to purchase than the locomotive consist (Consist B) and would have more than sufficient seating capacity for current ridership, which is about 300 passengers per train.

• If ridership were projected to increase, the alternate DMU Consist 3 would cost 4 percent less to purchase than locomotive Consist A (the 2-coach consist) and would provide the same number of seats as the locomotive consist. Consist 4 would cost 14 percent more to purchase than locomotive Consist A (the 2-coach consist) and would provide the same number of seats. The purchase cost difference for consist 4 would be paid back in 6 years of operating cost savings. DMU Consist 5 would cost 53 percent more to purchase than the locomotive consist B (the 3-coach locomotive consist) but would provide 38 percent more seats.



Figure 2. Speed Profile of One Single-Level DMU and One Single-Level Cab Car Traveling Between South Norwalk and New Milford

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Mile Post

Sp

eed

(m

ph

)

Speed Limit North-Bound South-Bound

← South-Bound North-Bound →

South Norwalk

New Milford



7.8. Maintenance Cost Calculations

Maintenance costs are modeled for the DMUs, coaches, and locomotives using the

methodology described below. First, we define maintenance and its included costs, and

then we calculate maintenance costs that are representative of the New Milford to

Stamford service.

7.8.1. Definition of Maintenance and Included Costs

The maintenance cost presented here contains the following components:

• Preventative maintenance

• Unscheduled repairs

• FRA inspections

• A reserve for overhauls

• Servicing

• Cleaning

We do not include costs for maintenance management, maintenance of service

vehicles, or maintenance of shops.

Maintenance cost data come from the real maintenance experience of current

customers of our dome touring cars, historical data provided by our component

suppliers, and engineering estimates. Additional information on the calculation of

maintenance costs is available in the paper, “Economics of FRA-Compliant DMUs,”

which is available from Colorado Railcar.



7.8.2. Calculation of Maintenance Costs Representative of

New Milford to Stamford Service

Maintenance costs for rolling stock will vary by the amount the rolling stock is used, in

this case measured as 50,000 annual miles per vehicle for the Stamford to New Milford

service. Below is a description of how maintenance costs are calculated that are

representative of 50,000 annual miles.

Maintenance costs for the Colorado Railcar DMU and a single level coach can be

automatically adjusted using our maintenance cost model to match a service with

50,000 annual miles per vehicle. At 50,000 annual miles, a DMU costs $110,000 per year

to maintain, and a coach costs $80,000.

Costs for locomotive maintenance must be interpolated from data available from

Tri-Rail/SFRTA (serving Miami to West Palm Beach) and the Altamont Commuter

Express (ACE, serving San Jose to Stockton), as published in “Economics of FRA-

Compliant DMUs.” Tri-Rail’s annual maintenance cost for a locomotive that travels

70,000 miles annually is $182,000. ACE’s annual maintenance cost for a locomotive that

travels 35,000 miles annually is $102,000. Interpolating between these two data points,

a locomotive that travels 50,000 miles annually is estimated to cost $140,000 annually to

maintain.

7.9. Emissions Calculations

Emissions are calculated by multiplying the horsepower hours used by the DMU prime

movers or locomotive prime mover by their respective emissions per horsepower hour.

Horsepower hours are calculated by the performance model.

Emissions per horsepower hour for the DMU are based on data supplied by

Detroit Diesel for the 2004 certified emissions of the Series 60 engine. Because new

DMUs will contain engines that will meet new 2005 EPA NOx standards, the future

EPA standard is substituted for Detroit Diesel’s current NOx emissions.



Emissions per horsepower hour for the locomotive come from the EPA’s estimate

of what locomotives built in 2005 and later will emit, given in “Locomotive Emission

Standards Regulatory Support Document,” prepared by the EPA Office of Mobile

Sources, April 1998. This estimate is for the line-haul locomotive duty cycle, as there is

no data for a passenger locomotive duty cycle. The passenger duty cycle falls

somewhere between the line-haul duty cycle (lower emissions) and the switch

locomotive duty cycle (higher emissions).

Table 7 lists the emissions factors used in this analysis.

Table 7. Emissions Factors Used to Calculate Total Emissions Output

Grams per brake horsepower hour (g/bhp-hr)

Hydrocarbons

(HC)

Carbon Monoxide

(CO)

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

Particulate Matter (PM)

DMU 0.071 0.476 2.9 0.06

Locomotive 0.3 1.28 5.0 0.17

Emissions by the locomotive’s HEP and the DMU’s generator have been excluded from

this analysis. Emissions by these engines should be relatively similar because the

engines must meet similar EPA standards. The generator on the DMU, however, is

more appropriately sized for the consist and is more likely to be operated in its more

efficient range, therefore resulting in lower fuel consumption and lower emissions.

These differences between HEP generators are considered negligible for this analysis.



Attachment A: Schedule for Danbury Branch

PURPOSE AND NEEDS REPORT

FEASIBILITY STUDY DANBURY BRANCH ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT

APPENDIX A - DANBURY BRANCH and UPPER HARLEM LINE METRO-NORTH RAILROAD SCHEDULES (effective April 27 – October 25, 2003)

Danbury Branch Schedule - Weekdays

A-1



Danbury Branch Schedule– Weekend

A-2



Attachment B: CRM DMU Noise Data

TD-02.003 – Revision A 24 July 2003

CRM DMU Noise Data

Prepared by: Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC 1011 14th Street Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 303-857-1066

Prepared for: Prospective Client Information

This document is the property of Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC. It must not be made public, copied, or used in any way detrimental to our interests. Copies of this document may not be provided to third parties without express written permission of Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC. This document was reviewed for accuracy at the time of issue. The reader is advised to check with Colorado Railcar for the latest information.

CRM DMU Noise Data TD-02.003A

Colorado Railcar Manufacturing 24 July 2003 Page 1

INTRODUCTION

This report presents noise data for Colorado Railcar Manufacturing’s new Diesel

Multiple Unit (DMU). Exterior noise for the DMU is compared to locomotive noise

standards, and interior noise is shown as well.

For more information, please contact:

Christina Rader, Director of Economics and Environment Colorado Railcar Manufacturing, LLC 1011 14th Street Ft. Lupton, CO 80621 303-857-1066 x115 [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DMU Exterior Noise Compared with EPA Standards....................................................... 2

DMU Exterior Noise Measurements .................................................................................... 3

Interior Noise at 70 miles per hour ....................................................................................... 4

Interior Noise at 80 miles per hour ....................................................................................... 5



90 Moving at any speed898887 Stationary, throttled up86858483828180797877

Moving at 50 mph in notch 8 76Accelerating from a stop at full throttle 75

Moving at 50 mph in notch 5 747372

Coasting at 50 mph 7170 Stationary, idle696867

Stationary, engines idling 666564

Stationary, only generator idling 63

* See next page for exact measurements and methodology.

Our preliminary measurements indicate that our perceived exterior sound level is less than half that of locomotive standards. Measured in decibels, our levels are 4 to 14 decibels less than the standards. Or, to put it another way, in general, you could stand 50 feet from our DMU and be exposed to less noise than standing 100 feet away from a locomotive that exactly meets the standards.

COLORADO RAILCAR DMU EXTERIOR NOISE COMPARED WITH EPA STANDARDS

Colorado Railcar DMU*

EPA Locomotive Noise Standards (40CFR201

and 49CFR210)

Comparison of Colorado Railcar DMU with Locomotive Standards(at 100 ft, dBA)



DMU EXTERIOR NOISE MEASUREMENTS

At 50 ft At 100 ftStationary -- generator only 64.5 63.1Stationary -- all engines idling 72.0 65.5Accelerating from stop at full throttle 82.5 75.550 mph pass by forward in coast 76.0 70.850 mph pass by reverse in coast 76.8 70.150 mph pass by forward in notch 5 78.8 73.350 mph pass by reverse in notch 5 80.2 74.150 mph pass by forward in notch 8 80.2 74.850 mph pass by reverse in notch 8 80.3 75.6

Lmax (dBA)

Tests performed May 23, 2003 by Colorado Railcar, following procedures recommended by FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual (April 1995). Tests performed on DMU alone (not pulling any coaches). All dynamic measurements are dBA in "fast" mode (Lmax). Stationary measurements are in "slow" mode.



INTERIOR NOISE AT 70 MILES PER HOUR



INTERIOR NOISE AT 80 MILES PER HOUR



Attachment C: Reliability and Events Resulting in Disabled DMU Consists



RELIABILITY AND EVENTS RESULTING IN DISABLED DMU

CONSISTS

The modeled DMU consists all have multiple, redundant propulsion packages. This

gives the DMU consists an inherent advantage over traditional locomotive hauled

consists – the ability to limp home if one or more propulsion packages fails for any

reason. No modeling was performed with disabled DMU consists. CRM does not

recommend beginning travel with a disabled propulsion package. However, if a

propulsion package failure should occur in route, all modeled consist can complete the

route with minimal delay. Past modeling suggests a maximum delay due to

diminished power of only a few minutes. In comparison, a disabled locomotive-hauled

consist cannot complete its route and will strand passengers until a rescue unit is

dispatched. Further, all other traffic on the route will be delayed during this rescue.

Listed below are potential failure modes disabling one propulsion package or one

DMU.

Failure Modes Disabling One Propulsion Package

• Drive engine mechanical or electrical failure

• Transmission mechanical or electrical failure

• Cardan shaft or final drive unit mechanical failure

• Control system component failure

• Radiator system failure (loss of fluid, fans, pumps, pipes, hoses)

• Air intake system failure (charge air cooler, air filters, hoses)

• Fuel system failure



Failure Modes Disabling One DMU and Two Associated Propulsion Packages

• Master control PLC failure

• Control system component failure

• Loss of trainline MU

• Battery system failure

• Brake system electrical failure

• Loss of both HEP and local generator



Attachment D: Danbury Line Ridership



Chapter 5

Existing Rail Ridership The following chapter provides a review of Metro-North ridership data, including current annual ridership and historic trends, and 2001 inbound boardings, for the Danbury Branch and Harlem Line .

5.1 Danbury Branch

Current Annual and Historic Ridership

Figure 35 illustrates the annual ridership on the Danbury Branch from 1992 to 2001. Ridership on the Danbury Branch has grown from 619,268 in 1992 to 750,410 in 2001, although its peak year was 1996 with a total of 765,110.

Figure 35: Danbury Branch Annual Ridership

619,268 630,772 664,773 692,190765,110 745,747 734,100 722,529 754,670 750,410

0100,000

200,000300,000

400,000500,000

600,000700,000

800,000900,000

1,000,0001,100,000

1,200,0001,300,000

1,400,0001,500,000

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

YEAR

RID

ERS

73



Monthly Breakdown Table 31 provides a breakdown of ridership by month for each year from 1992 to 2001. The ridership data includes both pre-paid fares and allocated cash fares. A more detailed breakdown of monthly ridership by pre-paid fare and allocated cash fare is shown in Table 32.

Table 31: Danbury Branch Ridership by Month (1992-2001)

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

January 54,512 51,468 53,206 58,032 64,287 66,192 64,108 57,484 59,647 65,628

February 46,216 46,622 49,711 50,833 58,482 56,294 55,432 52,929 58,558 55,536

March 53,370 57,540 57,926 61,601 64,954 63,528 63,619 64,267 65,711 63,302

April 52,545 54,797 53,872 53,806 65,300 63,862 63,227 61,579 59,888 62,967

May 49,598 52,028 55,977 59,385 65,070 62,840 59,780 57,385 64,721 65,299

June 53,216 55,320 58,244 59,060 62,075 63,331 64,492 62,855 65,920 64,323

July 53,305 53,465 53,241 53,090 65,104 66,128 63,536 60,354 60,724 63,809

August 49,560 52,573 58,166 60,655 64,124 59,611 60,496 61,151 66,592 65,307

September 51,334 52,082 54,421 56,296 61,479 60,418 59,291 59,703 62,355 56,925

October 53,390 51,506 57,325 62,571 69,709 64,387 62,279 60,836 67,138 68,303

November 48,463 50,323 55,523 58,066 60,173 54,492 56,577 61,105 62,121 60,225

December 53,759 53,048 57,161 58,795 64,353 64,664 61,263 62,881 61,295 58,786

ANNUAL TOTAL 619,268 630,772 664,773 692,190 765,110 745,747 734,100 722,529 754,670 750,410

74



Table 32: Danbury Branch Ridership by Month (1992-2001) – Prepaid tickets vs. Allocated Cash Fares

BRANCH/MONTH 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

PREPAID TICKETSJanuary 49,477 46,265 47,959 52,690 59,266 60,670 57,309 51,085 52,743 57,846February 41,761 42,163 44,910 46,261 53,575 51,444 49,856 46,972 51,821 48,832March 48,439 52,423 52,613 56,233 59,494 57,742 57,134 57,358 58,180 55,602April 47,331 49,385 48,469 48,311 59,484 58,173 56,650 54,361 52,471May 44,379 46,452 49,828 53,564 59,082 56,891 52,791 49,810 56,732June 47,792 49,687 51,578 53,147 56,034 56,864 57,335 54,236 57,391July 47,681 47,820 46,945 46,972 58,548 59,200 55,711 51,705 51,549August 43,928 46,493 51,689 54,234 57,737 52,619 52,796 52,630 57,347September 45,951 46,510 48,626 50,230 55,497 53,973 52,239 52,238 54,102October 47,917 46,035 51,358 56,440 63,386 57,998 55,041 52,616 58,559November 43,005 44,678 49,678 52,182 54,243 48,174 49,336 52,586 53,462December 47,482 46,794 50,656 52,258 57,494 57,123 52,616 53,552 51,971

ANNUAL TOTAL 555,143 564,705 594,309 622,522 693,840 670,871 648,814 629,149 656,328 162,280

ALLOCATED CASH FARESJanuary 5,035 5,203 5,247 5,342 5,021 5,522 6,799 6,399 6,904 7,782February 4,455 4,459 4,801 4,572 4,907 4,850 5,576 5,957 6,737 6,646March 4,931 5,117 5,313 5,368 5,460 5,786 6,485 6,909 7,531 7,700April 5,214 5,412 5,403 5,495 5,816 5,689 6,577 7,218 7,417May 5,219 5,576 6,149 5,821 5,988 5,949 6,989 7,575 7,989June 5,424 5,633 6,666 5,913 6,041 6,467 7,157 8,619 8,529July 5,624 5,645 6,296 6,118 6,556 6,928 7,825 8,649 9,175August 5,632 6,080 6,477 6,421 6,387 6,992 7,700 8,521 9,245September 5,383 5,572 5,795 6,066 5,982 6,445 7,052 7,465 8,253October 5,473 5,471 5,967 6,131 6,323 6,389 7,238 8,220 8,579November 5,458 5,645 5,845 5,884 5,930 6,318 7,241 8,519 8,659December 6,277 6,254 6,505 6,537 6,859 7,541 8,647 9,329 9,324

ANNUAL TOTAL 64,125 66,067 70,464 69,668 71,270 74,876 85,286 93,380 98,342 22,128

COMBINED TOTALJanuary 54,512 51,468 53,206 58,032 64,287 66,192 64,108 57,484 59,647 65,628February 46,216 46,622 49,711 50,833 58,482 56,294 55,432 52,929 58,558 55,478March 53,370 57,540 57,926 61,601 64,954 63,528 63,619 64,267 65,711 63,302April 52,545 54,797 53,872 53,806 65,300 63,862 63,227 61,579 59,888May 49,598 52,028 55,977 59,385 65,070 62,840 59,780 57,385 64,721June 53,216 55,320 58,244 59,060 62,075 63,331 64,492 62,855 65,920July 53,305 53,465 53,241 53,090 65,104 66,128 63,536 60,354 60,724August 49,560 52,573 58,166 60,655 64,124 59,611 60,496 61,151 66,592September 51,334 52,082 54,421 56,296 61,479 60,418 59,291 59,703 62,355October 53,390 51,506 57,325 62,571 69,709 64,387 62,279 60,836 67,138November 48,463 50,323 55,523 58,066 60,173 54,492 56,577 61,105 62,121December 53,759 53,048 57,161 58,795 64,353 64,664 61,263 62,881 61,295

ANNUAL TOTAL 619,268 630,772 664,773 692,190 765,110 745,747 734,100 722,529 754,670 184,408

75



Inbound Boardings

In 2001, weekday inbound ridership on the Danbury Branch totaled 1,052 trips, of which 958 trips occurred in the peak and 94 in the off-peak. Danbury Branch weekday inbound ridership made up 1.8% of the total weekday inbound ridership on the New Haven Line, which totaled 55,641 trips. On weekends, inbound ridership on the Branch totaled 411 trips (213 on Saturday & 198 on Sunday)., and accounted for approximately 1.0% of the total weekend inbound ridership on the New Haven Line (42,027).

Table 33 details the number of 2001 boardings during the am peak and off-peak by station on the Danbury Branch. The table shows that the total weekday number of boardings on the Branch was 1,052, with 958 persons boarding during the peak and 94 during the off-peak.

Danbury had the highest number of total weekday boardings followed by Branchville and Bethel. However, during the AM peak, Branchville actually had the highest number of boardings with a total of 182. The table also shows that Redding and Merritt-7 had the lowest number of weekday inbound boardings.

Table 33: 2001 Weekday Inbound Danbury Branch Boardings by Station (1)

STATION

AM PEAK

WEEKDAY OFF PEAK

TOTAL WEEKDAY

Danbury 174 52 226

Bethel 172 10 182

Redding 51 8 59

Branchville 182 13 195

Cannondale 112 3 115

Wilton 173 5 178

Merritt-7 94 3 97

Total 958 94 1052(1) Calculated by factoring 1998 On/Off counts based on ticket sales data to reflect 2001

ridership levels.

Table 34 provides similar data for the weekend, indicating that the total number of inbound weekend boardings totaled 411, with 213 occurring on Saturday and 198 on Sunday. The table indicates that Danbury, Branchville, and Bethel have the highest number of inbound boardings, and that Merritt-7 had the lowest.

76



Table 34: 2001 Weekend Inbound Danbury Branch Boardings by Station

(1) Calculated by factoring 1998 On/Off counts based on ticket sales data to reflect 2001 ridership levels.

STATION SATURDAY SUNDAY TOTAL WEEKEND

Danbury 109 84 193

Bethel 19 29 48

Redding 20 19 39

Branchville 24 35 59

Cannondale 11 11 22

Wilton 21 18 39

Merritt-7 9 2 11

Total 213 198 411

5.2 Harlem Line

Tables 35 provides detail on the number of weekday inbound boardings at Harlem Line Stations. The table shows that weekend inbound boardings for the entire line totaled 43,108 in 2001, with 29,205 occurring in the peak and 13,903 in the off-peak. White Plains and Scarsdale were the two busiest stations, while Tremont and Melrose had the lowest number of boardings. On the upper Harlem Line, stations that are easily accessible for Connecticut residents that live near the Danbury Branch (Katonah, Golden’s Bridge, Purdy’s, Croton Falls, Brewster, Brewster North, Patterson, and Pawling), had a total of 6,275 total weekday inbound boardings, with 4,600 occurring in the AM peak, and 1,675 in the off-peak. Of these stations, Brewster, Brewster North, and Katonah, had the highest weekend daily total boardings.

Table 36 provides similar data for weekend boardings at Harlem Line Stations.

77

Documents

Connecticut 5 Final … · Connecticut Department of Transportation FINAL Task 2 Report Washington Group International Evaluation of Engineering Alternatives Gannett Fleming Transit