of past business, especially in the design of larger freight terminals, and much thought should be given to the probable growth of business. In general the design of a new freight house will involve the following steps and the study should be carried on in a logical manner and in approximately the sequence indicated below: 1. Make a critical study of the business to be handled. Ascertain the relation of each class of freight to the total tonnage handled. 2. Study past business for a sufficient number of years to determine the general trend of each class. Analyze the factors which govern and carefully consider the influence of each on probable future growth. Summarize and set up the data as a basis for design. 3. Obtain as much data as possible relating to all the factors of design enumerated in this report, bearing in mind the particular requirements of the freight house to be designed. Check up local conditions and compare the results with the factors indicated in this report. 4. Study the peculiarities of the proposed site to determine the most desirable size, shape and location of house as well as the most advantageous arrangement of approach and storage track. 5. Arrange all tracks so that the most flexible operation possible will result. Reduce switching movements to a minimum. 6. For preliminary design, pending further investigation, or in cases where detail information is not available, the following factors are suggested as a basis: a. Roadway 40 ft. wide if one house only is served. b. Roadway 60 ft. wide if houses on both sides are to be served. C. Roadway 64 ft. wide if houses on both sides are to be served and column obstructions are encountered. d. Eleven (11) ft of tailboard space per vehicle. e. An average vehicle speed of 8 M. P. H. f. In large cities, the existence of regular cartage companies operating vehicles to and from the freight houses probably results in a higher average vehicular loading since the average loading of such vehicles is generally 2 tons or over, while that for ordinary vehicles is frequently less than 1 ton. It, therefore, follows that the average loading for all classes of vehicles in use at a particular house is a function of the proportion of heavily and lightly loaded vehicles and that an absolute value to cover this factor cannot be set up. The values indicated in this study are merely submitted as information. g. The loading per car can generally be ascertained from the records and should be obtained in each instance. In the absence of definite data the use of 8 or 9 tons per car for Inbound and Outbound freight will probably be found satisfactory. h. The average time of loading or unloading per vehicle is a direct function of house operation and local condition. For freight houses in large cities, use the units given in this report. In smaller cities this factor should be investigated, together with the data indicated in item f. i. One hundred fifty (150) sq. ft. of floor area per ton of miscellaneous inbound freight, subject to delay, will probably be found satisfactory, although local conditions may dictate otherwise. j. Forty (40) sq. ft. of floor space for outbound freight received via doors or handled on the floor of the house, providing hand trucking is in use, will probably meet most needs. If motor trains are used as a means of handling freight to the cars, the width of house will be determined by its plan and the proposed method of operation. In such cases a width of 40 to 60 ft. appears desirable. If part of the outbound freight is handled on a separate transfer platform adjacent to the outbound setting a platform width of not less than 20 ft. for hand trucking and 30 ft. for motor operation appear desirable. k. If the conditions are as outlined in this study 1.2 tons per linear ft. as the average daily capacity of the Inbound house tailboard for freight houses located in large cities may be used. Modify, if necessary, on the basis of data obtained under items f and h. 1. If the conditions are as outlined in this study, 1.25 tons per linear ft. of tailboard at the outbound house may be used. Modify according to items f and h if revision is indicated by local condition. m. Tailboard frontage per car for either Inbound or Outbound house is not generally a limiting factor, although special cases may arise requiring a consideration of this factor. n. Provide an adequate number of scales in the Inbound house to properly handle such reweighing as in the judgment of operating officials is necessary. There can be no argument that some reweighing is necessary and a check of shipments for a short period, say one week, at the existing facility or one of similar character will serve as an excellent guide in determining the number of scales required. At the Outbound house, one scale every forty-four (44) ft. appears to give satisfactory operation. o. Generally speaking, limit the length of house for hand trucking to 500 ft. and for motor train operation to 1,200 ft. The proposed method of operation should be closely studied in this connection. p. Minimum floor liveloads in large cities are generally controlled by municipal regulations, but it will be frequently found that the minimum floor load specified is inadequate. Unless the class of freight handled dictates otherwise, the floor load recommended in this report may be used as a basis for design. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ARTICLES ON FREIGHT TERMINALS TAKEN FROM YARDS AND TERMINALS COMMITTEE REPORT VOLUME 22-PAGES 895-898 Engineering News-Record 1. Ocean Freight Terminal on Staten Island, New York. Private plant. Covered piers and seven-story concrete building, with no walls around first floor. January 17 and February 28, 1918, pages 120 and 426 2. Produce Market and Warehouse at Los Angeles. Two-story and six-story buildings. January 24, 1918, page 167. 3. Freight Station of Central Manufacturing District, Chicago; L C. L. freight handled by tractors and trucks; tunnels for trucking to industries. February 28, 1918, page 405. 4. Warehouse at Buffalo, N. Y. Conveyor systems used and upper floor cantilevered over tracks. February 28, 1918, page 411. 5. Freight Piers at Norfolk, Va.; Norfolk & Western Ry. Hinged ramps with conveyor chains for loading and unloading vessels. May 16, 1918, page 940. 6. Ocean Pier and Warehouse at Houston, Texas. Ramps at wharf; elevators and overhead traveling crane into warehouse. July 24, 1919, page 156. 7. Freight Terminal Design as Work of Engineers. September 18, 1919, page 540. 8. Freight Handling at the Brooklyn Army Base U. S. A. Doubledeck piers, nine-story warehouses, electric tractors hauling trains of trucks under control of dispatcher system. September 18, 1919, page 555. 9. Ocean Pier and Terminal at Seattle. Freight-handling methods. November 13, 1919, page 855; January 1 and June 3, 1920, pages 37 and 1107. 10. Transfer of L. C. L. Freight at Cincinnati. Motor truck service between all freight stations. Freight loaded into large wagon bodies, which are sealed; bodies placed on and taken off trucks by overhead cranes. March 11, 1920, page 508. 11. Railway Terminals in Relation to City Planning. page 901. May 6, 1920, 12. Ocean Terminal at New York, Lehigh Valley R. R. Long piers; warehouses. May 13, 1920, page 970. 13. Municipal Ocean Terminal on Staten Island, New York. Long, narrow piers. May 27, 1920, page 1047. 14. Width of Steamship Piers. Provision for cargo storage, railway tracks and mechanical handling. July 22, 1920, page 160. 15. Freight Yard of Denver & Rio Grande R. R. at Soldier Summit. Operating conditions; flat switching. May 27 and June 10, 1920, pages 1069 and 1159. 16. Freight Yard of Michigan Central R. R. at Niles, Michigan. Hump switching. January 8, 1920, page 81. 17. Freight Yard of Illinois Central R. R. at Chicago. Main line and local transfer business. Hump switching. August 5, 1918, page 313. 18. Trainshed of Indianapolis Union Station. August 19, 1920, page 350. 19. Development of Grand Central Station, New York. Lofty buildings erected over track space of electrically operated terminal. September 9, 1920, page 496. 20. Improved Freight Yard at Lincoln, Nebraska, for Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. R. November 18, 1920, page 996. 21. Operation of Car-Float Transfer Yards. page 1186. Railway Age. December 16, 1920, 1. Terminal Ten-Story Warehouse at Cleveland; Big Four. June 29, 1917. 2. Freight Terminal at Vancouver; Canadian Northern Railway Herringbone tracks in team yard. November 23, 1917. 3. Electric tractors at Pier 4, New York. August 3. 1917, page 199. Page 735. 5. Electric trucks for Handling Freight. December 7, 1917, page 1039. 6. Union Package Terminal. A proposed new package freight terminal at Jersey City. March 1, 1918, page 445. 7. Illinois Central Markham Yard and N. Y. N. H. & H. New Haven Freight Terminals Compared. May 10, 1918, page 1164. 8. New Passenger Station of R. F. & P. at Richmond, Va. February 14, 1919, page 401. 9. An Analysis of the Locomotive Terminal Problem. March 7, 1919, page 538. 10. Modern Tendencies in the Design of Roundhouses. March 14, 1919, page 587. 11. page 843. British Railway Improvements at Glasgow. March 28, 1919, 12. Reinforced Concrete Roundhouse Layout for T. & O. C. at Columbus. April 18, 1919, page 994. 13. Some Modern Tendencies in Roundhouse Design. page 1199. May 16, 1919, 14. Illinois Central Projected Terminal at Chicago. July 11, 1919, page 51. 15. Michigan Central Classification Yard at Niles, Mich. January 23, 1920, page 287. 16. Modernizing Freight Car Repair Facilities. February 27, 1920, page 608. 17. Handling L. C. L. freight in Interchange by Motor Trucks at Cincinnati. March 5, 1920, page 681, and August 6, 1920, page 219. 18. D. & R. G. Freight Terminal at Soldier Summit, Utah. March 26, 1920, page 1025. 19. Relation of Railroad Terminals to City Plan. April 30, 1920. page 1285. 20. First Unit of St. Paul Union Station Completed. May 21, 1920. page 1442. 21. Unit Construction Enginehouse. A standard design of unit construction for enginehouses on the Pennsylvania. June 11, 1920, page 1663. 22. Report of Committee of American Railway Association, Section III-Mechinical (Master Car Builders) on Repair Shop Layouts. June 20, 1920, page 1801. 23. A. C. & O. Enginehouse for Mallet Compound Locomotives. June 25, 1920, page 1975. 24. N. Y. N. H. & H. Freight Terminal at Cedar Hill (New Haven), Conn. July 30, 1920, page 179. 25. The Claremont Terminal of the Lehigh Valley in Lower New York Harbor. October 8, 1920, page 599. Railway Review. 1. Freight Station and Warehouse at Pittsburgh (Federal Street), Pennsylvania System. December 15, 1917. STANDARDIZATION G. A. RODMAN, Chairman; F. M. DAVISON, R. V. REAMER, Sub-Committee. WINDOW GLASS SIZES Replies to questionnaires sent out would indicate very little has been done on many of the railroads in regard to standardization of window glass sizes. Two or three roads have adopted one standard for all purposesthis being a light 10 in. by 16 in. in size. A few additional roads have adopted a standard for some of the minor types of buildings. It is the opinion of the Committee that it would be a practical impossibility to adopt one size of window glass which would answer for all types of buildings and for all sections of the country, but we do believe that standard size can be adopted for all roads for such buildings as shops, engine houses, yard buildings, minor passenger stations and freight houses; also all of the small miscellaneous buildings on the railroad. When it comes to elaborate city stations, general office buildings, and the larger city freight offices, it is desirable, for architectural effects, to use larger sizes of glass. Further, in the second story of signal towers it is practically necessary to put in larger lights so as to give an unobstructed view of the tracks. The question of sizes and prices was taken up with window glass manufacturers and they recommended, first, all fractional sizes to be eliminated this will save the fractional cutting charge. They further recommend that as far as possible small sized glass be used, as this tends to reduce the cost per square foot of glass. At the present time a 10 in. by 16 in. light costs about twelve cents (12c), and as the size increases the price per square foot increases, so that when we get to 20 in. by 32 in. which is four times as large, the price is five times the cost of 10 in. by 16 in.-or an increase of 25 per cent. In view of these facts it would seem desirable to adopt a light 10x16, or about that size, for all miscellaneous purposes, including shops, engine houses and country passenger stations. For the more elaborate buildings, usually designed by an architect or where it is advantageous to put in larger lights, to adopt certain standard sizes which best suit the conditions of the railroad. These sizes, so far as possible, to be multiples of 10x16. The number of sizes used to be reduced to a minimum to effect saving in the Stores Department stock and also the confusion arising from repairmen having to carry a number of different sizes of glassalso to avoid errors in taking measurements. |