Appendix A-1 

Design Report 
Transportation 

Project Report

Draft Final Design 

Report 

November 2019

Livingston Avenue Bridge over the Hudson River 

Project Identification Number (PIN): 1935.49 

Bridge Identification Number (BIN): 7092890 

Cities of Albany and Rensselaer 

Counties of Albany and Rensselaer 

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Project 

Location 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

TOC-1

Table of Contents 

CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 EXISTING BRIDGE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................... 2

1.3 HIGH-SPEED RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE ..................................................................................... 5

1.4 BRIDGE CLOSURE SCENARIO ........................................................................................................ 5

CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND GOALS .............................................................................................. 7

2.2 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE(S) ................................................................... 8

2.2.1. Design Standards ........................................................................................................................ 8

2.2.2. Critical Design Elements ............................................................................................................. 8

2.2.3. Other Design Parameters .......................................................................................................... 10

3.1 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................. 10

3.1.1. Alternatives considered and discarded ...................................................................................... 10

3.1.2. Build Alternative 1 – Replacement on an Adjacent Alignment to the North ............................... 11

3.1.3. Build Alternative 2 - Replacement on Adjacent Alignment to the South .................................... 14

3.2 OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................. 16

3.2.1. Operations & Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 16

3.2.1.1. Class of Railroads and Track Rights ............................................................................... 16

3.2.1.2. Signals and Interlockings – .............................................................................................. 17

3.2.1.3. Rail Speeds and Delay .................................................................................................... 18

3.2.1.4. Rail Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................... 18

3.2.1.5. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis .................................................... 19

3.2.1.6. Lighting ............................................................................................................................ 19

3.2.1.7. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction ........................................................................ 20

3.2.1.8. Maintaining Rail and Marine Traffic During Construction ................................................ 20

3.2.2. Multimodal .................................................................................................................................. 20

3.2.2.1. Pedestrians ...................................................................................................................... 20

3.2.2.2. Bicyclists .......................................................................................................................... 22

3.2.2.3 Transit ............................................................................................................................... 22

3.2.2.4 Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports .............................................................................. 23

3.2.2.5 Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) ...................... 23

3.2.2.6. Streets and Highways ...................................................................................................... 23

3.2.3. INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................................. 29

3.2.3.1. Proposed Rail Segment ................................................................................................... 29

3.2.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements ............................................................................... 30

3.2.3.3. Drainage Systems ........................................................................................................... 30

3.2.3.4. Geotechnical .................................................................................................................... 30

3.2.3.5. Structures ........................................................................................................................ 30

3.2.3.6. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts ................................................................................. 31
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

TOC-2

List of Exhibits 

1.2.1 Gusset Plate Load Ratings 3 

1.2.2 Member Load Ratings 4 

1.2.3 Gusset Plate Capacity-to-Demand Ratios 4 

1.2.4 Member Capacity-to-Demand Ratios 4 

2.1 Project Goals and Objectives 7 

2.2.2 Comparison of Critical Design Elements for Project Alternatives, Wye Track 8-9 

3.1.2 Key Characteristics of Build Alternative 1, North Alignment 13 

3.1.3 Key Characteristics of Build Alternative 2, South Alignment 15 

3.1.3.1 Comparison of Feasible Alternatives Estimated Project Costs (Millions) 16 

3.2.1.4 Existing Train Traffic Across Livingston Avenue Bridge (average weekday) 19 

3.2.1.7 Track Ownership, Operating and Maintenance Rights and 

Responsibilities Upon Completion of Contract 20 

List of Figures 

1-1 Project Location 

1-2 A View of the Existing Livingston Avenue Bridge 

1-3 Existing Livingston Avenue Bridge Plan and Elevation 

1-4 Rail Lines in the Capital District 

3-1 Alternative 1 – Replacement on an Adjacent Alignment to the North 

3-2 Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) – Replacement on an Adjacent Alignment to the South 

3-3a North Alignment Shared Use Path Option: West Access Ramp 

3-3b North Alignment Shared Use Path Option: East Access Ramp 

3-4a South Alignment Shared Use Path Option: West Access Ramp 

3-4b South Alignment Shared Use Path Option: East Access Ramp 

Appendices 

APPENDIX A 2015 IN-DEPTH INSPECTION REPORT 

APPENDIX B LOAD RATING REPORTS 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

1 

CHAPTER 1 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge is a rail bridge that spans the Hudson River between the City of Albany 

(Albany County) and City of Rensselaer (Rensselaer County) in New York State (see Figure 1-1 for the 

Project location). The Livingston Avenue Bridge was built for the New York Central Railroad in 1901-

1903 by the American Bridge Company. It is the third successive bridge in this location, preceded by an 

iron truss bridge built in 1872-1875 and the original wood truss bridge of 1864-1866. The current bridge 

was built on the abutments and piers of the original, 1860s bridge. 

The two-track Livingston Avenue Bridge is approximately 1,300 feet long from abutment to abutment, 

with nine piers. The tracks are approximately 12 feet apart, measured from the centerline of one track 

to the centerline of the other. The profile of the existing bridge is level, with a very slight grade of less 

than 1 percent. Two steel towers approximately 151.5 feet high above Mean High Water flank the 

swing span and support power cables. Figure 1-2 shows a view of the existing bridge. 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge spans a navigable portion of the Hudson River and has a vertical 

clearance above the water that varies from 25 to 30 feet, depending on the tide. The structure is a 

swing span movable bridge. The swing span pivots open and provides a vertical clearance from Mean 

High Water to overhead catenary cables of approximately 135 feet. Although there are two channels 

when the bridge is in the open position, only the east channel has a fender system and is used for 

navigation. When the bridge is in the open position, the east channel provides 100 feet horizontal 

clearance and the west channel provides 110 feet. The east channel is narrower as a result of the 

fender system. The regulated navigational channel maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE) in this portion of the Hudson River is approximately 600 feet wide, most of the width of the 

river. The Livingston Avenue Bridge’s movable span is at the western edge of the navigational channel. 

In the past 15 years, the bridge has opened as many as 474 times a year (in the peak year of 2005). In 

recent years, the bridge opened for ships an average of 300 times a year, generally during the boating 

season between April and November. 

CSX Transportation Inc. (CSX) owns the Livingston Avenue Bridge as part of its Hudson Subdivision, 

and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) controls it as part of the Empire Corridor 

route through a long-term lease with CSX. The Livingston Avenue Bridge is at Milepost QC 143.1 on 

the CSX Hudson Subdivision. Using its bridge identification system, NYSDOT has assigned the 

structure Bridge Identification Number (BIN) 7092890. The bridge and the CSX Hudson Subdivision 

became part of Amtrak’s and Conrail’s national passenger and freight networks, respectively, in the 

1970s. CSX acquired the Livingston Avenue Bridge, much of the CSX Hudson Subdivision, and other 

connecting rail routes in 1999 when it acquired 43 percent of Conrail’s assets. Amtrak maintains and 

operates the bridge substructure, superstructure, swing mechanism, signal system, track and ties by 

agreement with CSX. 

For the reasons explained in this report, the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge has been identified as a 

contributing factor to delays in the movement of freight and passengers throughout New York State. The 

project is essential to implementing future rail plans and improving state-wide transport. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

2 

1.2 EXISTING BRIDGE CONDITIONS 

The superstructure of the existing bridge was constructed in 1901-1903 as the third superstructure to 

utilize the original abutments and piers constructed in 1864. The bridge is near the end of its 

serviceable life due to increases in train sizes and decreasing reliability of the electrical and mechanical 

components of the swing span. The swing span frequently malfunctions, resulting in delays to 

passenger trains, freight trains, and maritime traffic. Since the existing bridge’s live load capacity rating is 

less than half of the value that would be required to meet modern design standards, passenger and 

freight trains operating over the bridge are subject to loading and speed restrictions. Due to this reduced 

load rating, the two-track bridge can be used only by one train at a time and the maximum authorized 

speed is 15 miles per hour (mph), which is substantially slower than the 40 mph maximum authorized 

speed on adjacent rail segments. The bridge essentially acts as a single-track bridge, dramatically 

restricting capacity. The vertical clearance for trains traveling across the bridge is nonstandard (18 feet 

2 inches, compared to the 23-foot vertical clearance standard established by the American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)). 

Based on the condition inspections of the bridge performed by NYSDOT consultants in September 2010 

and December 2015, the structure is in overall fair to poor condition. Deterioration previously noted in the 

1998 NYSDOT Inspection has continued. 

The mechanical portions of the swing span are significantly worn. All components are operating but 

require near constant maintenance to keep the bridge in a state of acceptable operation. Long term 

reliability of the mechanical system is a serious concern. 

The electrical portions of the bridge are outdated and obsolete. All major electrical components are 

operable due to significant maintenance effort. Long term reliability of the electrical system is a serious 

concern. 

Amtrak has prepared but not awarded a contract to update/repair the electrical and mechanical systems 

of the existing bridge with the intent to extend the useful life of those systems by 10 years and increase 

bridge reliability. 

The metalwork in the truss spans is in fair condition. Section losses have worsened over time since the 

1998 Inspection, particularly in the floor system where corrosion holes and “knife edges” in floorbeam and 

stringer cover plates were noted. Heavy section losses were noted in the truss bottom chord lacing bars, 

batten plates and lateral bracing connection plates. 

The metalwork of the swing span is in fair condition with new areas of corrosion noted since the 1998 

inspection. Gaps at the wedge bearings result in vertical pumping with the passage of live load and the 

bearings are in overall poor condition. The girder spans are in fair to poor condition. 

The existing piers consist of masonry block on timber piles capped with a two-layer mat of timber cribbing. 

The exposed portions of the substructure units are in generally fair condition with some localized areas in 

poor condition. At some point in the history of the bridge, the pier that supports the eastern-most truss 

span and the western-most girder span settled, with an elevation differential from one end of the pier to 

the other of about 6 inches. There are a number of displaced stones at the noses of the masonry piers. 

The 2004 NYSDOT Underwater Inspection Report noted that the three swing span piers “are in critical 

condition with significant undermining of the timber foundations” and “the timber piles exhibit heavy rot 

with an average of 1⁄2 to 3⁄4 inch reduction in size [diameter], including the tops of piles where only 50 

percent of piles are still load-bearing”. The 2015 NYSDOT Underwater Inspection found that areas of 

undermining noted in 2004 have filled in making further inspection of the noted deteriorations difficult. 

Other piers exhibit similar underwater conditions. The timber fender system is in very poor condition and 

the 2015 inspection found that portions have collapsed, making inspection in those areas not possible. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

3 

The exposed surfaces of the unreinforced concrete abutments exhibit extensive spalling, map cracking 

and efflorescence. 

The 2015 NYSDOT Condition and Underwater Inspection Reports are included as Appendix A. 

In conjunction with the 2015 In-Depth Inspection, as-built and as-inspected load ratings were performed 

by NYSDOT consultants in accordance with the 2015 AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering. The load 

ratings calculated Normal and Maximum Cooper E Rating factors for three loading cases; Double Track 

operation with a 40 mph speed limit, Double Track operation with a 15 mph speed limit and Single Track 

operation with a 15 mph speed limit. The truss span gusset plates were also inspected, analyzed and 

rated using the 2010 AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE), 2nd Edition, with 2011, 2013 and 

2014 interims with additional AREMA guidance. The January 2017 Load Rating Reports are included as 

Appendix B. 

The gusset plate load ratings do not control over the member load ratings for either the as-built or asinspected case. The gusset plate load ratings do not meet current AREMA design guidance of Cooper E65 for rehabilitation of existing superstructures and Cooper E-80 for new structures. A summary table of 

the controlling gusset locations and Cooper E ratings is included in Exhibit 1.2.1 below. The As-Built 

rating was not calculated for the Single Track, 15 mph loading case. See Figure 1-3 for member callouts 

and truss joint locations. 

Exhibit 1.2.1 

Gusset Plate Load Ratings 

Controlling As-Inspected E-Ratings 

No. of 

Tracks Speed Span Normal Rating Maximum Rating 

Member E-Rating Controlling Member E Rating Controlling 

Single 15 

mph 

174’-0” L4-M5 E73 Rivet Shear - E87 Overall Splice 

260’-3” U6-M7 E85 

Partial Plane 

Shear 

Yielding 

- E116 Overall Splice 

Double 15 

mph 

174’-0” L4-M5 E52 Rivet Shear - E63 Overall Splice 

260’-3” L1-M1 E61 Rivet Shear U6-M7 E97 Partial Plane 

Shear Yielding 

Double 40 

mph 

174’-0” L4-M5 E48 Rivet Shear - E57 Overall Splice 

260’-3” L1-M1 E53 Rivet Shear U6-M7 E80 Partial Plane 

Shear Yielding 

The controlling members of the as-inspected load rating were found to be two stringers located near the 

pivot pier of the swing span. These stringers are located on the North track of the bridge only used by 

freight trains headed up the Troy Industrial track and Amtrak to turn their Empire Corridor train sets for the 

trip back to New York City. The top flanges of these stringers have corroded to the point of almost 100 

percent section loss of the flange material. These stringers have been brought to Amtrak’s attention with 

the suggestion that they be repaired under the ongoing electrical and mechanical rehabilitation of the 

swing span. A summary table of the controlling member ratings for each loading case is included in 

Exhibit 1.2.2 below. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

4 

Exhibit 1.2.2 

Member Load Ratings 

Controlling As-Inspected E-Ratings* 

No. of 

Tracks Speed Span Normal Rating Maximum Rating 

Member E-Rating Condition Member E Rating Condition 

Single 15 

mph 

2 L1-M1 & 

L7-M7 E47 As-Built Floorbeam 1 E68 As-Built 

2 - E47 As-Inspected - E59 As-Inspected 

Double 15 

mph 

2 L1-M1 & 

L7-M7 E29 As-Built Floorbeam 1 E46 As-Built 

2 - E29 As-Inspected - E35 As-Inspected 

Double 40 

mph 

2 L1-M1 & 

L7-M7 E25 As-Built Floorbeam 1 E42 As-Built 

2 - E25 As-Inspected - E33 As-Inspected 

*Controlling Single Track, 15 mph, As-Inspected Rating is E-9 (Normal), E-13 (Maximum) for Stringers 3&4, Span 2

The Livingston Avenue Bridge was also analyzed for Amtrak standard equipment to determine the normal 

and maximum capacity-to-demand ratios. The controlling capacity-to-demand ratios for the gusset plates 

and members are presented in Exhibit 1.2.3 and Exhibit 1.2.4 below. Load Rating reports and 

calculations summarizing member and gusset plate rating methodologies, assumptions and controlling 

member ratings by span for each rating load case are located in Appendix A-2. 

Exhibit 1.2.3 

Gusset Plate Capacity-to-Demand Ratios 

Controlling As-Inspected Capacity-to-Demand Ratios (per Amtrak EP-4003)

No. of Tracks Speed Span Normal C/D Ratios Maximum C/D Ratios 

100% 125% 125% 

Single 15 mph 174’-0” 1.72 1.26 1.40 

260’-3” 1.62 1.54 1.94 

Exhibit 1.2.4 

Member Capacity-to-Demand Ratios 

Controlling As-Inspected Capacity-to-Demand Ratios (per Amtrak EP-4003)* 

No. of Tracks Speed Span Normal C/D Ratios Maximum C/D Ratios 

Single 15 mph 1-5 0.94 1.01 

6-9 1.08 1.05 

*Controlling As-Inspected Capacity-to-Demand is 0.29 (Normal), 0.29 (Maximum) for Stringers 3&4, Span 2

Two separate NYSDOT rail projects located adjacent to the Livingston Avenue Bridge: (1) the Albany to 

Schenectady Double Track project and (2) the Albany- Rensselaer Station 4th Track project1 were 

recently completed. Both projects were progressed by NYSDOT with USDOT funding2,3. The signal 

system throughout the corridor was replaced under these two projects with the exception of the bridge 

signals and controls. The existing signal and bridge control system dates from the 1960’s and is in a 

generally poor condition. While the control panel in the bridge operator’s house was replaced as part of 

the adjacent rail projects, the portion of the existing panel that controls the bridge operation will remain 

until the Livingston Avenue Bridge project is completed and the bridge controls are replaced. Failure of 

any component of the existing system would cause delays to trains or, if the bridge was stuck or indicated 

as unable to open, to marine traffic. 

The wye track on the east approach of the Livingston Avenue Bridge serves two functions. The first is to 

provide access for eastbound freight trains to the spur line track that heads north to Troy (via the north leg 

of the wye). A second function of the wye is to provide Amtrak the ability to turn around northbound trains 

arriving at the Albany-Rensselaer Amtrak Station from the south. The existing turnout for the north leg of 

the wye does not meet current AREMA standards, and limits speeds across the bridge to 15 mph. The 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

5 

wye turnout will be addressed as a part of the Livingston Avenue Bridge project to provide standard track 

speed and alignment as well as electronic control of the turnout. 

1.3 HIGH-SPEED RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE 

High-speed passenger rail service along the Empire Corridor is critical to New York State’s economic 

future and environmental sustainability. NYSDOT is seeking to improve intercity passenger rail service 

on this designated high-speed corridor while strengthening the freight rail system. The Livingston Avenue 

Bridge is a restrictive bottleneck along the Empire Corridor, which is a vital transportation route of national 

significance that provides for the transport of goods and passengers that would otherwise be transported 

by air or highway. 

As a separate project, FRA and NYSDOT are jointly preparing a tiered Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) for HSIPR Service Development on the Empire Corridor. A Draft EIS was published in January 

20144

. That project examines ways to introduce passenger train speeds of at least 90 mph between 

Schenectady and Niagara Falls and ways to improve reliability, travel times, and the frequency of 

passenger rail service. Improving the passenger rail system will alleviate congestion and petroleum 

dependence and improve air quality. It will also create broad economic opportunities, increase tourism 

and productivity, and help revitalize upstate cities. The speed restrictions and other limitations of the 

existing Livingston Avenue Bridge add to the infrastructure constraints along the Empire Corridor and 

impede future HSIPR plans. Improving the existing crossing is an essential component of developing a 

successful HSIPR corridor in New York State and providing ample connection to New York City. 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge project is also a part of the New York State Rail Plan 20095

, which was 

developed through substantial agency and public involvement and articulates New York State’s visions, 

goals, and objectives for its intercity passenger and freight rail systems. The intent of the plan is to serve 

as a blueprint to guide New York State’s rail transportation investment strategies, with the overall goals 

of reducing highway and airport congestion, limiting fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions, and 

furthering economic growth. The plan was prepared with the input and cooperation of New York’s freight 

railroads, Amtrak, commuter railroads, transportation planners, and state residents. 

1.4 BRIDGE CLOSURE SCENARIO 

There are no alternative passenger or freight routes that would be suitable as a permanent detour for the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge. The Livingston Avenue Bridge is one of two rail crossings of the Hudson River 

near Albany. The second crossing is the Alfred H. Smith Memorial Bridge on the CSX Castleton 

Subdivision, which spans the river between Castleton-on-Hudson and Selkirk approximately 10 miles 

south of Livingston Avenue Bridge. As an alternative to the Livingston Avenue Bridge, rail traffic could 

cross the Hudson River by way of the CSX route across this bridge, continuing northward using the CSX 

Selkirk Subdivision (see Figure 1-4). However, this routing would bypass Amtrak’s Schenectady and 

Albany-Rensselaer Stations, which are important station stops for Amtrak (the Albany-Rensselaer Station 

is the ninth busiest Amtrak station in the country and serves the New York State capital at Albany). To 

route passenger trains in this manner would likely require new bypass track around the Selkirk Yard to 

avoid potential conflicts between passenger and freight train traffic. The diversion would increase travel 

times by roughly 2.5 hours for through passengers on the Empire Corridor due to restricted speeds 

through the yard and over the Alfred H. Smith Memorial Bridge, constructed in 1924, and would 

negatively affect ridership and Amtrak crew availability while requiring additional train sets. The cost of 

upgrading and placing new track within the existing rail right-of-way would be extensive. This routing 

would also make connections to CP’s Canadian Mainline more difficult, thereby increasing travel times 

between New York City and points north of Albany, including Montreal and Vermont. For freight rail, this 

routing does not serve Schenectady, Rensselaer, and other communities currently served by CSX tracks 

crossing the Livingston Avenue Bridge. 

Without a rail crossing at Albany, another alternative would be to reroute freight trains as noted above 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

6 

and eliminate passenger rail service north of Albany. Travelers could instead travel by passenger car 

using the New York State Thruway (I-87 and I-90), which is generally parallel to the Empire Corridor, and 

the Northway (I-87), which is generally parallel to Adirondack rail routes. Intercity buses are also available 

to most locations, but not all buses provide for the same point-to-point service as Amtrak. Travelers could 

also use airlines, which provide direct service between New York City and Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, 

and Buffalo. However, there is no direct air service between the upstate cities and many communities 

along Amtrak’s Adirondack and Ethan Allen Express routes do not have commercial air service. 

1https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/high-speed-rail/arra-rail-projects; Accessed June 25, 2013. 

2http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecoveryData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=128639; Accessed 

June 26, 2012. 

3http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecoveryData/pages/RecipientProjectSummary508.aspx?AwardIdSur=128917; Accessed 

June 26, 2012. 

4 Tier 1 Draft EIS for High Speed Rail Empire Corridor, January 2014. https://www.dot.ny.gov/empire-corridor/deis; Accessed 

February 23, 2015. 

5 https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/policy-and-strategy/planning-bureau/state-rail-plan. Accessed June 14, 2011
NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

NY

CT

NJ

PA

MA

NY

AREA OF DETAIL VT

ALBANY

COUNTY

RENSSELAER RENSSELAER

COUNTY

Livingston Avenue Bridge 

over the Hudson River

BIN # 7092890

Cities of Albany and Rensselaer

Counties of Albany and Rensselaer

Figure 1-1

Project Location

0 2,000 FEET

2/22/2019
NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

2.22.19

A View of the 

Existing Livingston Avenue Bridge

Figure 2-2
7

Figure 1-3
2.22.19

NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

Rail Lines in the Capital District

Figure 1-4

N

https://www.nysdot.gov/divisions/policy-and-strategy/planning-bureau/state-rail-plan/repository/Fig%209%20-%202008%20NYS%20Rail%20Map.pdf
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

7 

CHAPTER 2 

2.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND GOALS 

The purpose of the Livingston Avenue Bridge project is to: improve reliability and reduce passenger and 

freight train delays along this segment of the Empire Corridor; achieve (at a minimum) a long-term stateof-good-repair for the bridge; eliminate existing bridge and track deficiencies; and maintain or improve 

navigation near the bridge. This will ensure that the Livingston Avenue Bridge meets modern passenger 

and freight rail capacity and load (weight) standards, maintains acceptable levels of safety, and supports 

the long-term utility and vitality of the Empire Corridor. 

To evaluate the project alternatives developed as part of the environmental review process, NYSDOT 

identified project goals. A project’s goals and objectives are the foundation of its purpose and need under 

NEPA. They are used as the basis for developing the criteria and methodology for evaluating the project 

alternatives. The project goals are listed in Exhibit 2.1. 

Exhibit 2.1 

Project Goals and Objectives 

Project Goals Related Objectives 

Goal 1: Improve passenger rail 

operations, service reliability, 

and operational flexibility 

 Improve the bridge such that it can support simultaneous two-track 

operation, thereby removing delays to rail traffic. 

 Increase operational speeds along the bridge to a minimum of 30 mph.*

 Correct all identified track deficiencies on the bridge and its approaches to 

meet current design standards. 

 Improve operations by providing a signal system that meets current 

standards and is consistent with the signal systems recently completed on 

the two adjacent rail projects (Albany to Schenectady Double Track and 

Albany-Rensselaer 4th Track projects). 

 Ensure consistency with plans for the Empire Corridor and HSIPR program. 

 Accomplish Goal 1 in a cost-effective manner. 

Goal 2: Improve the load capacity of 

the corridor and remove 

existing structural operational 

limitations 

 Maintain or improve freight movement across the bridge. 

 Provide a river crossing capable of meeting current AREMA live-load 

standards (Cooper E-80). 

 Provide a river crossing with a design life of a minimum of 100 years. 

 Provide a river crossing that meets AREMA structural design criteria. 

 Provide a river crossing with a track vertical clearance of 23 feet and 14-

foot track centers, which will comply with Amtrak standards. 

 Provide the geometric clearances required by AREMA, CSX, and Amtrak 

for dual-track operation. 

 Accomplish Goal 2 in a cost-effective manner. 

Goal 3: Minimize conflicts with 

navigational traffic 

 Provide a river crossing that meets or exceeds existing horizontal 

navigational clearances. 

 Avoid or minimize disruptions to river traffic during bridge construction. 

 Avoid or minimize delays to trains or river traffic during bridge operation. 

 Accomplish Goal 3 in a cost-effective manner. 

Note: * 30 mph is the maximum feasible speed on the existing bridge, given the curve of the east approach tracks.
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

8 

2.2 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE(S) 

2.2.1. Design Standards 

The AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering with associated design and construction manuals from Amtrak, 

CSX and NYSDOT will be used as the design standard for this project. 

2.2.2. Critical Design Elements 

Exhibit 2.2.2 identifies critical design elements applicable to this project. 

Exhibit 2.2.2 

Comparison of Critical Design Elements for Project Alternatives, Wye Track

Element 

Existing 

Condition 

AREMA 

Standard 

CSX 

Standard 

Amtrak 

Standard 

Proposed Condition 

No Action 

Alternative 

Replacement 

Alternatives 

Maximum Authorized 

Speed (mph) 

15 at 

bridge1 N/A 10 (F)2 15 (P)2 10 (F), 15 (P) 

Track Class 1 Class 1 Class 1 Class 1 

Maximum Underbalance 

(EU) 

3.0”-4.5” 

Sect. 3.3.1e 

FRA Approval 

for >4” 

1.5” 

Dwg. 2511 

1.5” (F), 3” (P) 

Spec 63: 

Sect. 4.7.1 

1.5” (F) 

3” (P) 

1.5” (F) 

3” (P) 

Maximum Grade 1.1% 4% 

Sect. 17-3.5.8.3 

2.5% 

Spec 63: 

Sect. 5.1.2 

2.5%3 2.5%3

Horizontal Curvature 

(Maximum Degree of 

Curvature) 

20°-13’ NONE GIVEN 20o

 -0’ 

Dwg. 2511 

12°-30’ 

Spec 63: 

Sect. 4.3.4 

12°-30’3

 12°-30’3

Maximum 

Superelevation (EA) 2.5”± Recom. 6” 

Sect. 17-3.5.7.4 

4” 

Dwg. 2511 

6” 

Spec. 63: 

Sect. 4.6.3 

1”3 1”3

Minimum Horizontal 

Clearance to 

Obstructions 

N/A 9’-0” 

Sect. 28-1.2 

8’-6” 

Dwg. 2605 

16’-0” 

Dwg. AM70050G N/A N/A 

Minimum Horizontal 

Clearance on thru 

bridges 

N/A 9’-0” 

Sect. 28-1.3 

8’-6” 

Dwg. 2605 

9’-0” 

Dwg. AM70050G 9’-0” 9’-0” 

Minimum Vertical 

Clearance to 

Obstructions 

N/A 23’-0” 

Sect. 28.1.3 

23’-0” 

Dwg. 2604 

23’-0” 

Dwg. AM70050G N/A N/A 

Turnouts for connection 

speed: 

 Up to 15 mph 

Tables 5-3-3 & 

5-3-4 

#8 turnout #10 turnout 

Spec. 63 

7.4.1 

#10 turnout #10 turnout #10 turnout 

Structural Live Load 

Capacity 

Wye Track 

not on 

Structure 

Cooper E-80 Cooper E-80 Cooper E-80 Cooper E-65 Cooper E-80 

Notes: 

 (F) > freight 

 (P) > passenger 

1. The existing limiting speed is due to structural deficiencies. The existing mainline curve on the east end of the bridge has a degree of curve

of 7°‐5’ and a superelevation of 1”±. This curve has a design speed of 28 mph for passenger trains and 22 mph for freight trains.

2. Based on Class 1 track

3. Subject to change upon refinement of alignments, but value will not exceed proposed amount shown.
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

9 

Exhibit 2.2.2 (Cont’d) 

Comparison of Critical Design Elements, Mainline Track

Element 

Existing 

Condition 

AREMA 

Standard 

CSX 

Standard 

Amtrak 

Standard 

Proposed Condition 

No Action 

Alternative 

Replacement 

Alternatives 

Maximum Authorized 

Speed (mph) 

15 at 

bridge1 N/A 40 (F)2

 60 (P)2 15 

East Approach: 

25 (F), 30 (P) 

West Approach/Bridge: 

35 (F), 40 (P) 

Track Class 3 Class 3 Class 3 Class 3 

Minimum Spacing of 

Main Line Track Centers 12’± 15’-0” Dwg. 2605 

14’-0” 

Dwg. AM7003A 12’± 14’-0” 

Maximum Underbalance 

(EU) 

3.0”-4.5” 

Sect. 3.3.1e 

FRA Approval for 

>4” 

1.5” 

Dwg. 2511 

1.5” (F), 3” (P) 

Spec 63: 

Sect. 4.7.1 

1.5” (F) 

3” (P) 

1.5” (F) 

3” (P) 

Maximum Grade 0.17% 4% 

Sect. 17-3.5.8.3 

1.5% 

Spec 63: 

Sect. 5.1.2 

0.17% 1.5%3

Horizontal Curvature 

(Maximum Degree of 

Curvature) 

7°-5’ NONE GIVEN 5o

 -30’ 

Dwg. 2511 3°-34’4

 8°-0’3 10°-0’3

Maximum 

Superelevation (EA) 1”± Recom. 6” 

Sect. 17-3.5.7.4 

5” 

Dwg. 2511 

6” 

Spec. 63: 

Sect. 4.6.3 

4” 4” 

Minimum Horizontal 

Clearance to 

Obstructions 

34’-0”5 9’-0” 

Sect. 28-1.2 

8’-6” 

Dwg. 2605 

16’-0” 

Dwg. 

AM70050G 

34’-0”5 20’-0”5

Minimum Horizontal 

Clearance on thru 

bridges 

7’-6 1⁄2” 9’-0” 

Sect. 28-1.3 

8’-6” 

Dwg. 2605 

9’-0” 

Dwg. 

AM70050G 

7’-6 1⁄2” 9’-0” 

Minimum Vertical 

Clearance to 

Obstructions 

18’-2” 23’-0” 

Sect. 28.1.3 

23’-0” 

Dwg. 2604 

23’-0” 

Dwg. 

AM70050G 

18’-2” 23’-0” 

Turnouts for connection 

speed: 

 Up to 45 mph 

 Up to 30 mph 

 Up to 15 mph 

 

Tables 5-3-3 & 

5-3-4 

#20 turnout 

#15 turnout 

#8 turnout 

#20 turnout 

#15 turnout 

#10 turnout 

Spec. 63 

7.4.1 

#20 turnout 

#15 turnout 

#10 turnout 

#20 turnout 

#15 turnout 

#10 turnout 

#20 turnout 

#15 turnout 

#10 turnout 

Structural Live Load 

Capacity 

Single track 

of Cooper 

E-406

Cooper E-80 Cooper 

E-80 Cooper E-80 Cooper E-65 Cooper E-80 

Notes: (F) > freight, (P) > passenger 

1. The existing limiting speed is due to structural deficiencies. The existing mainline curve on the east end of the bridge has a degree of curve

of 7°‐5’ and a superelevation of 1”±. This curve has a design speed of 28 mph for passenger trains and 22 mph for freight trains.

2. Based on Class 3 track.

3. Subject to change upon refinement of alignments, but value will not exceed proposed amount shown.

4. Based on 60 mph design speed and a maximum superelevation of 6”.

5. Existing and proposed horizontal clearances are to the pier columns of the Interstate 787 structure.

6. The existing bridge was designed for 2 tracks of a load equivalent to Normal Cooper E‐40. The existing structural capacity corresponds to a

single track of Cooper E‐40 at 15 mph.
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

10 

2.2.3. Other Design Parameters 

The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the Americans with Disabilities Act 

Standards for Accessible Design will be used as the design standards for all pedestrian and shared use 

facilities. 

3.1 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 

3.1.1. Alternatives considered and discarded 

No Action Alternative 

NEPA regulations require examination of a No Action Alternative, which is an alternative to examine the 

conditions that would exist if the proposed action were not implemented. The No Action Alternative serves 

as a baseline against which the potential benefits and impacts of the Build Alternatives can be compared. 

NYSDOT’s regulations for implementing SEQRA also require consideration of a No Action Alternative. 

In the No Action Alternative, the Livingston Avenue Bridge would remain in service as is, with continued 

routine maintenance and repairs. No major improvements to, or replacement of, the Livingston Avenue 

Bridge would be undertaken with the No Action Alternative. The bridge’s live load capacity would not be 

improved, existing geometric deficiencies and vertical and horizontal clearance deficiencies would not be 

corrected, and the wye at the east approach to the bridge would not be realigned. With these substandard 

conditions, operations across the bridge would remain limited to single-track operation at 15 mph. 

The No Action Alternative would result in the continued deterioration of the structure, resulting in 

increased maintenance, and eventually could require the bridge to be closed to rail traffic. If the bridge 

were to close in the future, trains would have to cross the Hudson River via an inefficient, longer route. In 

that situation, passenger trains could be diverted to lower class track and across another Hudson River 

crossing, the Alfred H. Smith Memorial Bridge, on the CSX Castleton Subdivision, which spans the river 

between Castleton-on-Hudson and Selkirk. Routes would be longer and trains would either have to 

bypass the Albany-Rensselaer and Schenectady Stations completely or make circuitous routes to reach 

them that would add to the required detour (see the discussion of the permanent detour alternative in 

Section 1.4). 

In addition to operational limitations, the No Action Alternative would adversely affect river traffic. Existing 

horizontal clearance limitations would not be improved. The mechanical features of the swing span would 

continue to be subject to failure due to age and deterioration, limiting the reliability of the navigational 

channel. 

This alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the Project or satisfy any of the Project goals 

and objectives or the programming goals of improving service reliability and operational flexibility, 

improving the load capacity and reducing the operational limitations, and minimizing conflicts with 

navigational traffic. The No Action Alternative is retained as a baseline for environmental analyses as 

required by the NEPA and SEQRA processes. 

Rehabilitation of Existing Bridge for Mixed Rail Traffic 

Rehabilitation of the existing bridge substructure and superstructure would increase the load capacity to 

Normal Cooper E-65 (double track operation at 30 mph) and remove the existing structural and seismic 

deficiencies. The horizontal and vertical clearance deficiencies of the existing structure would remain. 

The existing approach track geometry and structural deficiencies require that the through girder spans be 

replaced on a new alignment instead of rehabilitated. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

11 

The existing truss substructures would be encapsulated by new pile supported reinforced concrete pier 

encasements to provide adequate structural and seismic capacity, and the existing girder substructures 

would be removed. New substructures would be required for the new girder span alignment. The 

existing truss superstructure members would be repaired and strengthened; the details of the existing 

truss geometry may preclude replacement of the truss gusset plates. The existing steel girder spans 

would be replaced with ballasted deck girder spans constructed off-line and floated or rolled into place as 

the existing spans are removed. The existing steel truss superstructure would be strengthened with the 

existing stringers, railroad ties and track replaced in a panel by panel manner. The existing mechanical 

and electrical equipment used to operate the bridge would be rehabilitated or replaced to ensure reliable 

operation for the foreseeable future. 

The required realignment of the wye spur line on the east approach would necessitate additional 

superstructure to be constructed separately from the mainline superstructure. The truss rehabilitation and 

girder span replacement could be achieved with minimal interruption to rail and marine traffic by utilizing 

over-night and short term closures to rail traffic. To maintain single track service across the bridge, 

staged construction of the thru-girder spans would be required. The staged construction would require 

extensive temporary supports that would be installed under the existing girder spans to facilitate removal 

of one track and thru-girder while the second track and girder remain in service. The required 

construction staging and temporary support structures will increase construction duration as well as the 

cost. The cost of this rehabilitation alternative of the existing structure ranges between 76% and 92% of 

the cost of replacing the structure (Exhibit 3.1.1) and does not meet the project goal of removing existing 

structural operational limitations. Therefore, this alternative will not be considered further. 

3.1.2. Build Alternative 1 – Replacement on an Adjacent Alignment to the North 

This alternative would construct a new bridge, including a lift navigation span, on a skewed alignment 

north of the existing bridge (see Figure 3-1). The new bridge would be constructed span by span to allow 

the existing swing span to remain in operation until the new lift span was operational. The lift span would 

be located east of the existing swing span within the channel maintained by the USACE, and would be 

somewhat more centered within the USACE channel, which is approximately 600 feet wide at the bridge. 

The new bridge cross section would provide centerline to centerline of trusses of 36’-0” to accommodate 

14-foot track centers and meet horizontal clearance requirements and would provide a vertical clearance 

within the truss spans from top of rail to the bottom of the truss lateral bracing of 23’-6”. Amtrak have 

indicated that there are no future plans to electrify the corridor which would necessitate a greater vertical 

clearance1. The new bridge would be designed to accommodate two tracks of Normal Cooper E-80 

operating at 30 mph. The new lift span navigational opening would be approximately 190 feet wide. 

The proposed navigational span would be protected by a fender system consisting of filled sheet pile 

dolphins connected by pile supported walers. The dolphins would be placed in front of the lift span tower 

piers on either side of the bridge and the pile supported walers would span between the dolphins to 

redirect wayward vessels back into the navigational channel. 

During construction, the float-in of the final new span parallel to the existing swing span and float-out of 

the existing span(s) in line with the new lift span would take place during a closure to both rail and marine 

traffic. The proposed substructures would consist of pre-drilled steel H-piles placed one pile at a time, 

rather than driven, to mitigate any vibration impacts to the existing structure. The approach girder spans 

would consist of ballasted deck girders to accommodate the required turnout for the wye track on 

structure as well as the additional width required for increased track spacing and lateral clearance. The 

steel girder spans on the east end of the bridge would require temporary falsework, such as a pilesupported work platform, to be erected in the shallow water which does not allow for the float in and out 

method employed for the truss spans. The required realignment of the wye spur line on the east approach 

will necessitate a separate superstructure from the main line replacement superstructure. 

1 Meeting Minutes – 2-9-2012 Meeting w/ Amtrak 1935552_Cor_Min_LAB_02-09-2012 with MM Comments.docx 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

12 

The track alignment is skewed to the flow of the Hudson River, requiring larger pier widths to 

accommodate the skewed superstructure bearing centerlines while the pier centerline remains parallel to 

flow. The track center spacing west of the river would carry the 14-foot spacing over the Water and 

Center Street bridges and match the existing track spacing at the west project limit. 

This alternative would require rehabilitation and reconfiguration of the Hudson Line bridges over Water 

and Center Streets. To accommodate a shift in the track alignment to the north at each bridge, a pair of 

the existing deck girders would be repositioned underneath the new alignment. A set of existing deck 

girders would be removed at Water Street to accommodate this shift. The abutment bearing seats would 

be reconstructed for new girder bearings underneath the two girder pairs that will be used by the new 

mainline track alignment. 

Key characteristics of Build Alternative 1 are summarized in Exhibit 3.1.2. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

13 

Exhibit 3.1.2 

Key Characteristics of Build Alternative 1, North Alignment 

Category Bridge Feature 

Geometry  The main line and wye track geometry meet current design standards except as noted in Section 

3.3.3.2. 

 This alternative would remove all the existing deficiencies. 

 The track centerline spacing would match the proposed 14-foot track center spacing at the east 

project limit; carry 14 feet across the Livingston Avenue Bridge, and then match the existing track 

spacing at the project limits. 

 This alternative would have 10 spans, with a span arrangement from east to west as follows: 

o Five 100-foot double-track deck girder spans for the main line tracks and three 

adjacent 100-foot single-track deck girder spans for the wye track, with a fourth 100-

foot deck girder span that is wider to allow for the wye track to merge with the north 

mainline track 

o One 235-foot through-truss lift span with 30-foot tower spans on either side 

o One 235-foot through-truss fixed span 

o Three 75-foot double-track deck girder spans. 

 The existing approximately 12-foot-wide track spacing geometry requires that track on the bridges 

over Water and Center Streets be realigned and the bridge substructures and superstructures be 

retrofitted to accommodate this realignment. 

Operational  This alternative would require a 2-day navigational closure to reverse the operation of the existing 

swing span. Since a new bridge pier would be constructed in the existing rotational path of the 

span, the span would first need to be retrofitted to enable it to rotate through the opposite two 

quadrants. The existing swing span only rotates through the northwest and southeast quadrants of 

its total arc and requires retrofitting to allow it to rotate through the other two quadrants. The bridge 

would be locked to marine openings and may have to be taken out of service for rail traffic as well 

to implement this retrofit. This retrofit is required only for this alternative. 

 This alternative would require two weekend closures of the wye track (32-36 hours) to rail traffic 

(both access to the Troy Industrial track and turning train movements from Albany-Rensselaer 

station). 

 This alternative would require a 2-day closure to marine traffic to install the final new bridge span 

and remove one of the existing spans in line with the new lift span. 

 Rail operation through the project area would be limited to a “Slow” condition at times where work is 

being done within 25 feet of an operational track. 

 This alternative would provide a minimum 190-foot-wide navigational opening and 60-foot-high 

vertical clearance when the bridge is in the open position to satisfy all U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) 

navigational clearance recommendations. The 60-foot vertical clearance of this alternative would be 

the same as the adjacent upstream and downstream structures. The horizontal clearance is the 

minimum recommended by USCG for this project. The USCG will provide the final required vertical 

and navigational clearance requirements after a separate public review process. 

 This alternative would maintain the existing vertical clearance within the navigational channel under 

the fixed spans by raising the profile of the bridge by 2 feet. This increase in profile is a result of 

using a multi-beam composite deck girder arrangement. The use of a through girder system would 

have further increased the required change in profile due to the increased depth of the through 

girders and floorbeams to accommodate the increased track spacing and ballasted deck. 

 This alternative would not preclude inclusion of a shared use walkway. 

Design Life  The project goal of providing a 75-year life span would be met.

Right-of-Way  In addition to impacts to lands owned by New York State and Amtrak, the new wye track alignment 

would require ROW acquisition from 8 vacant wooded parcels that are all owned by two commercial 

entities (approximately 1.8 acres total). 

 Temporary construction easements would be required to provide access for construction near both 

riverbanks. 

Cost  The estimated cost in 2023 dollars is $364.50 Million.
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

14 

3.1.3. Build Alternative 2 - Replacement on Adjacent Alignment to the South 

This alternative would construct a new bridge, including a lift navigation span, on an alignment parallel 

and south of the existing bridge (see Figure 3-2). The new bridge would be constructed span by span to 

allow the existing swing span to remain in operation until the new lift span becomes operational. The new 

lift span would be east of the existing swing span within the navigation channel maintained by the 

USACE, and would be somewhat more centered within the USACE channel, which is approximately 600 

feet wide at the bridge. The new bridge cross section would provide centerline to centerline of trusses of 

36’-0” to accommodate 14-foot track centers and meet horizontal clearance requirements and would 

provide a vertical clearance within the truss span from top of rail to bottom of lateral bracing of 23’-6”. 

Amtrak have indicated that there are no future plans to electrify the corridor which would necessitate a 

greater vertical clearance1. The new bridge would be designed to accommodate two tracks of Normal 

Cooper E-80 operating at 30 mph. The new lift span navigational opening would be approximately 190 

feet wide. 

The proposed navigational span would be protected by a fender system consisting of filled sheet pile 

dolphins connected by pile supported walers. The dolphins would be placed in front of the lift span tower 

piers on either side of the bridge and the pile supported walers would span between the dolphins to 

redirect wayward vessels back into the navigational channel. 

The proposed substructures would consist of pre-drilled steel H-piles place one pile at a time, rather than 

driven, to mitigate any vibration impacts to the existing structure. During construction, the float-in of the 

final new span parallel to the existing swing span and float-out of the existing span(s) parallel to the new 

lift span would take place during a closure to both rail and marine traffic. The steel girder spans on the 

east end of the bridge would require temporary falsework to be erected in the shallow water which does 

not allow for the float in and out method employed for the truss spans. The required realignment of the 

wye spur line on the east approach will necessitate separate superstructure from the main line 

replacement superstructure. The approach girder spans would consist of ballasted deck girders to 

accommodate the required turnout for the wye track on structure as well as the additional width required 

for increased track spacing. 

This alternative would require rehabilitation and reconfiguration of the Hudson Line bridges over Water 

and Center Streets. To accommodate a shift in the track alignment to the south at each bridge, a pair of 

the existing deck girders would be repositioned underneath the new alignment. A set of existing deck 

girders would be removed at Water Street to accommodate this shift. The abutment bearing seats would 

be reconstructed for new girder bearings underneath the two girder pairs that will be used by the new 

mainline track alignment. 

Key characteristics of Build Alternative 2 are summarized in Exhibit 3.1.3. 

1 Meeting Minutes – 2-9-2012 Meeting w/ Amtrak 1935552_Cor_Min_LAB_02-09-2012 with MM Comments.docx 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

15 

Exhibit 3.1.3 

Key Characteristics of Build Alternative 2, South Alignment 

Category Bridge Feature 

Geometry  The main line and wye track geometry would meet current design standards except as noted 

in Section 3.3.3.2. 

 This alternative would remove all the existing deficiencies. 

 The track centerline spacing would match the proposed 14-foot track center spacing at the 

east project limit; carry 14 feet across the Livingston Avenue Bridge and then match the 

existing track spacing at the project limits. 

 This alternative would have 10 spans, with a span arrangement from east to west as follows: 

o One 100-foot double-track deck girder span for the mainline and an adjacent 

100-foot single-track deck girder span for the wye track 

o Two 80-foot double-track deck girder spans for the main line tracks with one 

adjacent 80-foot single-track deck girder span for the wye track; the second 80-

foot deck girder span would merge the wye track with the north mainline track 

o One 235-foot through-truss fixed span 

o One 235-foot through-truss lift span with 30-foot tower spans on either side 

o One 235-foot through-truss fixed span 

o Two 75-foot double-track deck girder spans 

o One 100-foot double-track deck girder span. 

 The existing approximately 12-foot-wide track spacing geometry requires that track on the 

bridges over Water Street and Center Streets be realigned and the bridge substructures and 

superstructures be retrofitted to accommodate this realignment. 

Operational  This alternative would require three overnight closures (8-16 hours) to rail traffic, the first to 

the wye track and north mainline track and the others to the south mainline track. 

 This alternative would require two weekend closures of the wye track (32-36 hours) to rail 

traffic (both access to the Troy Industrial track and turning train movements from Rensselaer 

station). 

 This alternative would require a 2-day closure to marine traffic to install the final new bridge 

span and remove one of the existing spans in line with the new lift span. 

 Rail operation through the project area would be limited to a “Slow” condition at times where 

work is being done within 25 feet of an operational track. 

 When in the open position this alternative would provide a minimum 190-foot navigational 

opening and 60-foot vertical clearance to satisfy all USCG navigational clearance 

recommendations. The 60-foot vertical clearance of this alternative would be the same as the 

adjacent upstream and downstream structures. The horizontal clearance is the minimum 

recommended by USCG for this project. The USCG will provide the final required vertical and 

navigational clearance requirements after a separate review process. 

 This alternative would maintain the existing vertical clearance within the navigational channel 

under the fixed spans by raising the profile of the bridge by 2 feet. This increase in profile is a 

result of using a multi-beam composite deck girder arrangement. The use of a through-girder 

system would have further increased the required change in profile due to the increased depth 

of the through girders and floorbeams to accommodate the increased track spacing and 

ballasted deck. 

 This alternative would not preclude inclusion of a shared use walkway 

 No retrofits to the existing swing span would be required for this alternative. 

Design Life  The project goal of providing a 75 year life span would be met.

Right-of-Way  In addition to impacts to lands owned by New York State and Amtrak, the new wye track 

alignment would require ROW acquisition from 6 vacant wooded parcels that are all owned by 

two commercial entities (approximately 1.3 acres total). 

 Temporary construction easements would be required to provide access for construction near 

both riverbanks. 

Cost  The estimated cost in 2023 dollars is $299.25 Million.

See Exhibit 3.1.3.1 for a summary of alternative costs. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

16 

Exhibit 3.1.3.1

Comparison of Feasible Alternatives Estimated Project Costs (Millions)

Activities 

Build Alternative 1 

(North) 

($M) 

Build Alternative 2 

(South) 

($M) 

Final Design (10%) $17.17 $14.03 

Construction $171.70 $140.30 

Wetland Mitigation $0.00 $0.00 

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System SPDES Mitigation $5.00 $5.00 

Incidentals (25%) $42.93 $35.08 

Subtotal (2019) $236.80 $194.41 

Contingency (15%) $35.52 $29.16 

Subtotal (2019) $272.31 $223.57 

Mobilization (4%) $10.89 $8.94 

Subtotal (2019) $283.21 $232.51 

Inflation (present costs inflated 4%/yr to 

midpoint of construction, 2023) $48.11 $39.49 

Subtotal (2023) $331.31 $272.00 

Construction Inspection (10%) $33.13 $27.20 

ROW Costs $0.05 $0.04 

Total Project Costs $364.5 $299.25 

3.2 OTHER DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 

3.2.1. Operations & Maintenance 

3.2.1.1. Class of Railroads and Track Rights 

This project structure primarily serves one Class 1 freight railroad (CSX Transportation), one passenger 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

17 

railroad (Amtrak), with occasional crossings by another Class 1 freight railroad (Canadian Pacific). 

3.2.1.2. Signals and Interlockings – 

3.2.1.2.1 Proposed Signal System 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge signal system will consist of the bridge, the interlocking and the bridge 

operator all integrated with the adjacent signal system and the bridge operating system. The signal 

system will tie into CP 144 to the east and CP 145 to the west. CP 144 is the west end of the AlbanyRensselaer Amtrak Station. The two mainline tracks (North and South) would have cab signals while 

the west and north legs of the wye track will only have signals governing movements across the bridge 

span and through the turnout at the north end of the wye track. The signals governing movements 

across the bridge are collectively called CP LAB and will be controlled remotely along with the bridge 

operation. Provisions will also be made to allow for operation of CP LAB as well as the bridge from the 

bridge operator’s house. 

There are two adjacent projects that improved the operations and signals in the area. The AlbanyRensselaer Station 4th Track Project included a new interlocking at CP LAB, without changes to the 

current bridge control system. The Albany to Schenectady Double Track Project begins at the west end 

of the existing Livingston Avenue Bridge project with the first signalization changes made for the Double 

Track Project occuring at CP 145. 

3.2.1.2.2 CP LAB Interlocking: 

The Rensselaer Station Project installed new 2-track cab signals across the existing Livingston Avenue 

Bridge. It included new home signals, and power the turnout to the west leg of the Troy Wye. The 

equipment is housed in a new signal housing located adjacent to the previous CP Lab signal hut so that 

cables feeding the current Livingston Avenue Bridge can be utilized. After the LAB interlocking is 

modernized it will be remotely controlled from the Amtrak dispatch center in New York City along with 

all the adjacent signals in the two adjacent projects, some of which are currently controlled by the 

Livingston Avenue Bridge operator. 

The existing data cable connecting across the bridge was retired due to age by CSX in the early 2000’s, 

and a new Data Radio system was installed. The new signal interlocking system installed as part of 

the Rensselaer Station Project has a new self-contained Data Radio to transmit signal control data across 

the bridge. All of this technology will be transferrable to any bridge design or alignment currently under 

consideration for the Livingston Avenue Bridge, provided that the new equipment shelters and signals are 

not in the way of any alignment changes. 

When the Livingston Avenue Bridge is replaced, new cables will need to be installed along with new 

bridge detection equipment. This equipment would include bridge span locks, miter rail controllers, and 

track circuit transmission equipment to be designed by the design team. 

3.2.1.2.3 Livingston Avenue Bridge Control: 

The Livingston Avenue Bridge Control System will be of a Programmable Controller type, interlocked 

from the CP LAB signal system. The LAB Control System will only allow a bridge opening after it has 

detected a release from the Amtrak Train Dispatcher in New York City confirming that there are no trains 

approaching. The bridge opening for river traffic will be initiated by either a local bridge operator, or 

remotely opened when coupled with sufficient video displays that allow for the detection of river traffic and 

potentially pedestrian traffic. The local operator will only control the opening and closing of the bridge 

under the authority of the Amtrak Train Dispatcher. He will not control the CP LAB signals. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

18 

3.2.1.2.4 Other: 

Remote Control Operation of the Livingston Avenue Bridge will require implementation of a system of 

video display equipment coupled with sufficient local warning lights and horns to warn of a bridge 

opening and closing. The signal system will be interlocked so that the railroad signals located on the 

bridge approaches will not be capable of displaying a signal allowing for train movement across the 

bridge unless the bridge is properly aligned within FRA / AREMA / Amtrak limits, with sufficient span 

locks and miter rail controls detecting the bridge position. 

3.2.1.3. Rail Speeds and Delay 

3.2.1.3.1 Proposed Speed Limit 

The posted main line speed limit within the project limits will be 30 mph for passenger trains and 25 mph 

for freight trains. The posted main line speed limit is currently 25 mph on the track west of the project 

limits and 20 mph on the track east of the project limits for all trains. The wye track speed limit will be 

posted for 15 mph for passenger trains and 10 mph for freight trains. 

3.2.1.4. Rail Traffic Volumes 

3.2.1.4.1 Existing Rail Traffic Volumes

Currently, a maximum of 12 passenger and 3 freight trains cross this bridge between 7 AM and 10 PM 

and an additional maximum of 2 passenger and 3 freight trains cross between 10 PM and 7 AM. The 

maximum hourly volume is 4 trains per hour. 

3.2.1.4.2 Future No-Build Design Year Traffic Volume Forecasts 

In the future (with or without the Livingston Avenue Bridge project), it is expected that a maximum of 14 

passenger and 3 freight trains will cross the bridge between 7 AM and 10 PM and an additional maximum 

of 2 passenger and 3 freight trains will cross between 10 PM and 7 AM. 

3.2.1.4.3 Build Alternatives Design Year Traffic Volume Forecasts 

It is anticipated that the number of Passenger trains crossing this bridge between 7 AM and 10 PM will 

increase from 12 trains to 14 trains. CSX is considering an increase in freight traffic on the Troy Line, 

which extends northward on the east side of the Hudson from the north wye track at the Livingston 

Avenue Bridge; the amount of additional traffic being contemplated by CSX is unknown at this time 

though an assumption of 1.5-2% annual growth can be assumed. See Exhibit 3.2.1.4 for a summary of 

the existing rail traffic data. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

19 

Exhibit 3.2.1.4 

Existing Train Traffic Across Livingston Avenue Bridge (average weekday) 

Train Type No. Trains 

Amtrak Empire Service 4 

Amtrak Maple Leaf 2 

Amtrak Lake Shore Limited 2 

Amtrak Adirondack 2 

Amtrak Ethan Allen 2 

CSX Freight 5 

CP Freight 1 

Total 18 

Source: Amtrak.com; Accessed May 1, 2016. 

3.2.1.5. Safety Considerations, Accident History and Analysis 

There is no rail accident history or known safety deficiencies requiring correction for this project. All 

applicable safety requirements will be met for each feasible alternative. 

The proposed conditions would not measurably change vehicular traffic on Quay Street, and since no 

existing accident history is recorded, the proposed project is not expected to have any impact on the 

safety of Quay Street. 

Detours during construction would reroute traffic on several parallel and intersecting streets. Existing 

accident history analyzed in this study does not indicate any existing safety deficiencies or accident prone 

locations that would be exacerbated by project construction or by increased traffic volumes on detour 

routes. If Quay Street is closed at any time during bridge construction, northbound traffic would be 

detoured through the unsignalized intersection of North Ferry Street and Broadway. Since the additional 

traffic would be making right turns from Broadway onto Ferry, it is not expected that potential for collisions 

would increase. The same traffic would then turn right from Ferry onto Water Street. There is only one 

intersection-related accident at this location and three collisions in the linear segment south of the 

intersection. To account for high traffic speeds, it is advisable to post advance signing (a combination of 

static signs and VMS) on the I-787 southbound off ramp and Water Street in advance of the intersection 

with North Ferry Street to alert approaching vehicles of the changed traffic patterns associated with the 

detour. 

Collisions recorded at the Water Street/Quay Street/Colonie Street intersection are typical for signalized 

intersections with high traffic volumes during peak travel periods. The combination of Water Street traffic 

exiting from I-787 and commuters from the state parking lot exiting Quay Street create potential for 

collisions despite the presence of a traffic signal. Optimized signal phasing and timing may alleviate 

delays for impatient motorists that are a leading cause of signalized intersection collisions. 

3.2.1.6. Lighting 

Navigational lighting will be provided to delineate the navigation channel location as required by the 

USCG. The cantilevered maintenance walk will have walkway level lighting to provide full time access to 

the lift span machinery houses. The street lighting along Quay Street and the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike 

Trail will be maintained or relocated as required for each alternative. The shared used path (SUP) (see 

Section 3.2.2.1 for more information) that will be installed across the bridge, will require additional 

lighting to be added to provide a properly illuminated path across the bridge. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

20 

3.2.1.7. Ownership and Maintenance Jurisdiction 

According to the Hudson Line Operating, Management and Land and Track Lease Agreement between 

Amtrak and CSX all improvements funded by NYSDOT shall be the property of NYSDOT and title 

thereto shall be vested to NYSDOT and shall remain vested in NYSDOT for the useful life of such 

improvements and then vest in CSX. The track right of way within the project limits will remain owned by 

CSX Transportation and Amtrak where applicable. Amtrak will continue maintenance responsibilities for 

the rail bridge structure and machinery, track, ties, switches and signals. See Table 3.2.1.7 for proposed 

railroad related ownership and maintenance responsibilities. 

Exhibit 3.2.1.7

Track Ownership, Operating and Maintenance Rights and

Responsibilities Upon Completion of Contract

Limits by 

milepost Line Name Ownership 

Track 

Lessee/ 

Operating 

Rights 

Track 

Maintenance 

Responsibility 

Signal 

Maintenance 

Responsibility 

Structure 

Maintenance 

Responsibility 

East Bridge 

Approach 

Hudson 

Subdivision NYSDOT AMTK & CP AMTK AMTK AMTK 

Livingston 

Avenue 

Bridge 

Hudson 

Subdivision NYSDOT AMTK & CP AMTK AMTK AMTK 

West Bridge 

Approach 

Hudson 

Subdivision NYSDOT AMTK & CP AMTK AMTK AMTK 

Legend: AMTK – Amtrak, CP – Canadian Pacific Railway, CSX – CSX Transportation, NYSDOT – New 

York State Department of Transportation 

3.2.1.8. Maintaining Rail and Marine Traffic During Construction 

Rail and marine traffic will be maintained during construction with periodic planned disruptions at low 

traffic times. Through rail traffic will be maintained throughout construction except for occasional 

overnight closures to cut and throw track sections. These overnight closures should not impact rail 

operations as overnight freight train crossings can be scheduled around a single night track outage. 

Marine traffic will be temporarily held during span float-in/float-out operations and stopped for a minimum 

of two days twice for Alternative 1 and once for Alternative 2. The existing swing span must be retrofitted 

to swing through the opposite quadrants to facilitate construction of a new pier for Alternative 1. To 

facilitate this retrofit, the span must be locked and the swing mechanism retrofitted and tested before 

reopening to marine traffic. Both alternatives require a marine closure once the existing span is locked 

to facilitate installation of the final span of the new structure until an existing span in-line with the new lift 

span is removed. 

3.2.2. Multimodal 

3.2.2.1. Pedestrians 

Both Build Alternatives would have a shared use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. NYSDOT evaluated 

a range of different configurations for the shared use path (SUP) for each Build Alternative and selected 

the design options described below. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

21 

For both Build Alternatives, the SUP would run along the south side of the new bridge. In the truss spans, 

the SUP would be cantilevered from the south truss. In the girder spans, the SUP would be carried by a 

two-girder system independent of the rail bridge that shears common piers and abutments with the rail 

bridge. The SUP would be 12 feet wide on the bridge, to allow two-way pedestrian and bicycle traffic, 

and would widen to 14 feet at the base of its approaches. The approach ramps would have a grade of no 

more than 5 percent and the SUP and its approach ramps would comply with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA). 

The approach ramps for the SUP would touch down south of the new bridge and connect to existing and 

planned waterfront pathways on each side of the river. On the east side of the river, the shared use path 

would connect to the planned Rensselaer Riverfront Trail System, a linear park that will run along the 

waterfront. On the west side of the river, it would connect to the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail, which 

runs along the waterfront, and could connect with the proposed Albany Skyway, a project that would 

create a new walkway and bikeway from an existing highway ramp near the Livingston Avenue Bridge. 

The SUP would have a bicycle height railing on the outboard side and a pedestrian security fence and 

bicycle height railing on the inboard side to prevent unauthorized access from the walkway onto the 

railroad tracks. The walkway would include scenic overlooks at each end of the movable span to provide 

an area for pedestrians to collect and bicyclists to dismount when the bridge is opening/closing and the 

walkway gates are closed. Lighting, cameras and other security devices would ensure safe operation of 

the movable bridge span. 

Details related to operation and maintenance of the SUP on the structure will be coordinated with the 

respective trail owners and bridge owner and operator during final design. Coordination with the Cities of 

Rensselaer and Albany regarding ownership and maintenance of the shared use path is ongoing. 

With Build Alternative 1, the east approach for the SUP in Rensselaer would begin close to the water’s 

edge south of the new bridge (close to the location of the existing bridge). The path would start at the 

northern end of the planned Rensselaer Riverfront Trail System that will run north-south along the river. It 

would curve up and around 180 degrees to meet the bridge. One track in the Amtrak Maintenance Facility 

to the south of the existing bridge would have to be shifted to accommodate the shared use path’s 

approach ramp. See Figures 3-3a thru 3-3c for details. 

On the Albany side of the river, the SUP approach would begin at Quay Street, where there would be an 

at-grade crossing to connect to the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail. From Quay Street, the approach 

ramp would curve around to meet the new rail bridge. The ramp could connect with the proposed Albany 

Skyway project, which would be close to the location of the SUP’s Albany ramp. 

NYSDOT also considered a design option for the SUP on the north side of the new rail bridge with Build 

Alternative 1 rather than the south side but determined that a SUP on the south side was preferable. For 

the north side option, the approaches would be north of the new bridge, to avoid the need for pedestrians 

and bicyclists to cross the railroad tracks using a grade separation. On the east side of the river in 

Rensselaer, the SUP approach would begin at a future riverside pedestrian trail and curve around to meet 

the new bridge. On the west side of the river in Albany, the SUP approach would begin on Water Street at 

an existing parking lot. However, unlike a SUP on the south side of the bridge, a north side alignment 

would not provide direct connections to existing or planned walkways or bikeways, such as the 

Rensselaer Riverfront Trail System on the east side of the river or the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail or 

Albany Skyway on the west side. A SUP on the north side of the new bridge in Build Alternative 1 would 

also require right-of-way acquisitions for the approach ramps that would not be required for a SUP on the 

south side of the bridge. For these reasons, NYSDOT selected the SUP on the south side of the bridge 

with Build Alternative 1 and eliminated a SUP on the north side of the bridge from further consideration. 

With Build Alternative 2, the east approach to the SUP in Rensselaer would begin close to the water’s 

edge south of the new bridge, at the northern end of the planned Rensselaer Riverfront Trail System that 

will run north-south along the river. The path would turn westward to connect into the new railroad bridge 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

22 

west of its abutment to avoid a conflict with the nearby Amtrak Maintenance Facility. To make this 

connection, the SUP ramp would ascend on a fill embankment from the Rensselaer Riverfront Trail 

System to its own superstructure independent of the bridge, with a separate pier and abutment to extend 

the ramp structure over the northern extent of the planned Rensselaer Riverfront Trail System. See 

Figures 3-4a thru 3-4c for details. 

On the Albany side of the river, the SUP approach would begin at Quay Street, where there would be an 

at-grade crossing to connect to the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike trail. From Quay Street, the approach 

ramp would curve around to meet the new rail bridge. The ramp could connect with the proposed Albany 

Skyway project, which would be close to the location of the SUP’s Albany ramp. 

NYSDOT also considered several other design options for a SUP with Build Alternative 2. This included a 

different ramp configuration for the SUP in Rensselaer and two different options for SUPs on the north 

side of the new bridge rather than the south side. 

For a SUP on the south side of the new bridge in Build Alternative 2, NYSDOT evaluated an approach 

ramp configuration in Rensselaer in lieu of the proposed independent superstructure for the ramp. To 

avoid a conflict with the nearby Amtrak Maintenance Facility, the access path would rise higher than the 

new bridge’s track level, through the use of retaining walls and a flyover structure, so that it could pass 

above the rail yard. However, this configuration would be more costly and more complex to construct than 

the proposed approach ramp and, therefore, NYSDOT eliminated this option from further consideration. 

In addition, NYSDOT considered design options for a SUP on the north side of the new railroad bridge 

with Build Alternative 2 rather than the south side. These options would have approaches north of the 

new bridge to avoid the need for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross the railroad tracks using a grade 

separation. On the east side of the river in Rensselaer, the east approach would begin at a future 

riverside pedestrian trail and curve around to meet the new bridge. On the west side of the river in 

Albany, the approach could either begin at Water Street at the connection to the existing Mohawk-Hudson 

Bike-Hike Trail, with a tunnel under the railroad berm and then a ramp up to the bridge, or it could begin 

in an existing parking lot north of the bridge, without a direct connection to a waterfront walkway. The 

tunnel option would have safety, security, and cost issues not present in other alternatives and the 

parking lot option would require additional right-of-way acquisition and would not provide direct 

connections to a walkway or path. Therefore, NYSDOT eliminated the option of a SUP on the north side 

of the bridge with Build Alternative 2 from further consideration. 

On March 15, 2018, New York State Governor Cuomo announced $3.1 million in state funding for the 

Albany Skyway project, a plan developed by Capitalize Albany, the city’s economic development group. 

The project proposes to convert the U.S. Route 9 ramp that extends from Quay Street to Broadway into a 

pedestrian promenade, closing it to traffic.1 Governor Cuomo announced an additional $5 million in 

funding for the Albany Skyway project in May 2019. NYSDOT is administering the funding, will complete 

the project design, and manage the initial stage of construction. The first phase of the project, including 

conversion of the U.S. Route 9 ramp to a pedestrian promenade, is scheduled to be completed by late 

2021.

3.2.2.2. Bicyclists 

Bicyclist accommodation is discussed with pedestrian accommodation in Section 3.2.2.1. 

3.2.2.3 Transit 

No changes to transit services would occur as a result of the proposed project. 

1 https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-31-million-construct-albany-skyway. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

23 

3.2.2.4 Airports, Railroad Stations, and Ports 

No changes to airports, railroad stations, or ports would result from the proposed project, and no conflicts 

with these facilities are expected. Under the No Action Alternative as well as Build Alternatives 1 and 2, an 

increase over current traffic of two (2) additional trains per day would traverse the Livingston Avenue Bridge. 

This additional train traffic would result in negligible increases in rail station and port traffic. 

Several airports are located within 6 to 10 miles of the project site (there are no airports closer than 

approximately 6 miles). Albany International Airport is the most heavily trafficked airport in the region and 

is approximately 7 miles northwest of the Livingston Avenue Bridge. Other nearby airports include two 

smaller public facilities (Rensselaer County and South Albany Airports) and two private airports 

(Alexander Farm and Cross Farm Airports). Possible conflicts between construction equipment, e.g. a tall 

crane that will erect bridge girders, and the flight paths of aircraft using nearby airports have been 

considered and no conflicts are expected. 

3.2.2.5 Access to Recreation Areas (Parks, Trails, Waterways, and State Lands) 

No permanent changes in access to recreation areas within the study area would occur as a result of the 

proposed project. As discussed above, the proposed project would not preclude future development of a 

new riverfront path in Rensselaer. 

3.2.2.6. Streets and Highways 

There will be no permanent modifications or impacts to the streets and highways surrounding the project 

area due to the Livingston Avenue Bridge project. The two build alternatives would require short term 

temporary detours to surface streets in Albany to facilitate construction of the west abutment and Water 

and Center Street bridges. The detour routes are provided below. 

Feasible Detour Routes 

During a November 3, 2011 site visit by the project team, Broadway and Erie Boulevard were examined 

as feasible detour routes along with the following connecting streets: Colonie Street, North Lawrence 

Street and North Ferry Street. 

Broadway between Clinton Avenue and North Ferry Street has two travel lanes (14-16 ft. wide) with a 

mix of concrete and asphalt pavement with on-street parallel parking on each side. The pavement is in 

fair to good condition with varying distresses, such as wheel path rutting, longitudinal joint cracks, 

raveling pavement surface, areas of block cracking, spalling overlays and concrete surfaces and 

numerous utility cuts and repairs. 

Erie Boulevard is an asphalt section with varying lane widths (12-14 ft.) between North Ferry Street 

and Colonie Street. The distresses noted were wheel path rutting, transverse cracking, longitudinal 

cracking and utility cuts and repairs. 

Colonie Street, which would provide the shortest route, was eliminated since it is not a through 

connection. It is cut by the CP tracks and is barricaded on each side at the tracks. Also its intersection 

with Broadway is located under the CSX overpass in a sag curve with limited sight distance in either 

direction. 

North Lawrence Street has a concrete pavement, 4-12 ft. lanes wide between Broadway and the CP 

at-grade track crossing. Beyond the crossing, the street narrows to 2-12 ft. lanes with asphalt pavement. 

Approaching Erie Street, there is a partially vacant building to the north, with a large 4 bay loading zone 

several feet behind the curb. Both sections of pavement are in fair to poor condition showing varying 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

24 

distresses. The north approach to the track crossing has a vertical profile change of approximately 24”-

30” occurring over a distance of several feet without a vertical curve. Due to the varying pavement widths, 

pavement conditions and possible conflicts with trucks at the loading area, North Lawrence Street was 

eliminated as part of a feasible detour route. 

North Ferry Street has a uniform asphalt section with 2-12 ft. lanes from Broadway to Erie Boulevard with 

on-street parallel parking near Broadway. The asphalt is in good condition throughout except in the 

vicinity of the CP at-grade track crossing. At the crossing, the pavement in fair to poor condition, having 

the same grade change as the crossing on North Lawrence Street. The crossing has cantilevered gate 

arms for both traffic lanes and sidewalks areas. Except for the railroad crossing, it appears that the street 

has been paved within the past few years. It appears that the City has chosen North Ferry Street as the 

connection between Erie Boulevard and Broadway since it has installed guide signs directing motorists to 

this street. 

All of Broadway and Erie Boulevard showed light traffic volumes during the site visit. The connecting 

streets that were examined, except for North Ferry Street, showed no signs of through traffic. While 

North Ferry Street did have through traffic, the volumes were minor. There are three signalized 

intersections in the proposed detour route: Clinton Avenue/Broadway, Livingston Avenue/Broadway and 

Colonie Street /Water Street. 

The immediate project area is comprised of parking lots, warehouses, vacant commercial buildings and a 

few active businesses (i.e. Budget Rental, Modern Printing). Beyond the access to the OGS parking lots 

and the City of Albany lot for event parking and the Mohawk-Hudson Bike- Hike Trail, there are no 

commercial stores, restaurants or such attractions in the immediate project area for the general 

public. 

Proposed Detour Routes – North and South Build Alternatives 

Construction-related vehicles would access the Albany construction area from Colonie Street or Water 

Street. Construction-related vehicles would access the Rensselaer construction area via Tracy Street. It is 

anticipated that construction workers would park in the staging area. 

FRA and NYSDOT have developed a proposed work zone traffic control program to minimize the 

temporary impacts to vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic that would occur in Albany under both Build 

Alternatives. The work zone traffic control program and details on the detours that would be required, with 

and without the completion of the Albany Skyway project, are presented in Appendix A-3, “Conceptual 

Staging,” and Appendix A-4, “Detour Routes,” and summarized as follows: 

During a two-month construction period for the west bridge abutment and west end span: 

 Quay Street would be closed and NYSDOT would install signage in accordance with standard 

procedures for a detour via the U.S. Route 9 ramp to Broadway to North Ferry Street to Erie 

Boulevard. If the Albany Skyway project is completed prior to this work and therefore the U.S. Route 

9 ramp is no longer open to traffic, the detour would begin at the Quay Street/NYS Route 5 connector 

intersection; 

 Access to the Corning Riverfront Park parking lot south of the railroad crossing would be closed due 

to a one-way (northbound) traffic pattern. If the Albany Skyway is completed, access to the Jennings 

Landing (amphitheater) parking facilities would also not be allowed from Quay Street. 

In addition, partial closure of NYSOGS Lot 11 under the I-787 overpass would be required, displacing 

approximately 20 parking spaces just north of the existing bridge. 

The use of I-787 as a posted detour route was examined and discarded as a viable option. North of the 

project area connections between adjacent surface streets and I-787 are non-existent. The next 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

25 

connection to the north is I-90 requiring a motorist to travel east or west to find an exit, turn around and 

retrace the route back to the Colonie Street exit. The signage would have to be placed on northbound and 

southbound I-787 extending onto I-90. This option was discarded since it will extend the project limits well 

beyond the actual work area. 

Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail 

The Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail has l o c a l access points from the City of Albany parking lot 

under the I-787 viaduct and the Corning Preserve parking lot. The City parking lot is also used during 

events at Maiden Lane Park, which is located further south beyond the Corning Preserve. Pedestrians 

attending events at the park utilize the lot under the I-787 Bridge and use the trail to get to events at 

Maiden Lane Park. 

One option to maintain access is a pedestrian detour, approximately 1⁄2 mile in length. This detour would 

begin adjacent to the OGS Lot 12A parking lot, located at the intersection of Centre Street and Livingston 

Avenue. This location has the only sidewalk, other than the trail, that goes south from the project area. 

Pedestrians parking in the City of Albany Lot and OGS Lot 11 would cross Water Street to the barricaded 

walkway along the southbound lanes on Water Street. They would then proceed south on Water Street, 

walking up a steep grade for the bridge crossing the Canadian Pacific Railroad, continue through the 

Orange Street and Columbia Street intersections to Maiden Lane. From here they would then ascend the 

grade for the Maiden Lane Bridge that spans I-787 to reach the park. The reverse route would be used 

for pedestrians to get back to their vehicles. Due to the length, crossing of several intersections and the 

bridge grades that one will encounter, it was determined that this would not be a feasible detour. 

Access could also be maintained by erecting a pedestrian canopy through the work area under the 

railroad bridge. The canopy is assumed to be 100 feet in length to provide adequate clearance on either 

side of the work area and would be 13 feet in width. Temporary lighting would be required to provide safe 

adequate lighting levels inside the canopy for the duration of the work. Bicyclists would be required to 

walk their bicycles through the canopy. Access to the canopy would be prohibited temporarily during 

heavy lift operations or other operations that may present a risk to the public. 

Corning Preserve 

As discussed as part of the Quay Street detour, the west girder span erection phase would cut-off 

access to the Corning Preserve located south of the project area. Northbound Quay Street is the only 

means of vehicle access to the Preserve. Below are three options that maintain access in some form to 

the Preserve area, the first two options would not be viable after transformation of the Clinton Avenue ramp 

into the Albany Skyway. 

Option 1 is a temporary connection from the Preserve’s existing entrance/exit driveway to the Clinton 

Avenue ramp which runs parallel to Quay Street at this location. Making the connection opposite the 

existing entrance would require building approximately 25-35 linear feet of temporary pavement and 

removing/ resetting of granite curbing on Quay Street and the ramp. The connecting profile would have to 

make up an elevation difference between the ramp and entrance of approximately 5 feet. This connection 

would meet the ramp at the beginning of the horizontal curve that passes under I-787 and would require a 

temporary all way stop condition. 

Option 2 is a temporary connection to the Clinton Avenue ramp made from the southwesterly corner 

of the Preserve parking lot through a gap in the tree line fronting the parking lot. At this location the 

elevation difference between the parking lot, Quay Street and the ramp are minimal. The connection 

could be made through the curbed island between the parking lot and Quay Street and temporary striping 

through the gore area between Quay Street and the Clinton Avenue ramp. This option would require +/- 

25 linear feet of temporary pavement with removal/resetting of the granite curb for the island area 

between Quay Street and the parking lot. The temporary connection would be configured for right in-right 

out movements. Construction of the connection will result in a temporary loss of 5 parking spaces. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

26 

Removal and restoration of the temporary connections back to original conditions will be required once 

Quay Street is reopened as a through route. 

Option 3 would use the proposed pedestrian canopy mentioned above. This option utilizes the City 

parking lot under the I-787 structure for vehicle parking and pedestrian/bicycles would use the existing 

trail under the canopy to access the Preserve area. This would not provide any direct parking at the 

Preserve. 

Proposed Detour Route – Approach Bridges 

Water Street Closure 

This proposed closure is for structural lifting of the Water Street and Centre Street structures only. 

Reconstruction of the beam seats and other preparatory work would be done 

The proposed detour for Water Street will begin at the Colonie Street/Water Street intersection. At the 

signal, traffic will turn right from Water Street onto Colonie Street and at the Erie Boulevard intersection 

with Colonie Street traffic will make a left onto Centre Street following this route under the CSX 

overpass to its intersection with Water Street, and then turning right onto Water Street to continue 

south. 

During this work phase the large trucks will have to be directed to remain on I-787 and use the Clinton 

Street exit to access the areas to the south of the tracks. The CSX overhead crossings west of the project 

area on Broadway and North Pearl Street have vertical clearances of 12 ft.-3 in. and 10 ft.-8 in. 

respectively, which are inadequate for the passage of these vehicles. Portable, variable message signs 

(PVMS) would be placed on I-787 on the southbound approach to provide advanced warning for trucks. 

Centre Street Closure 

Centre Street is the only means of ingress for the OGS Lot 12A and will need to remain open for the 

Water Street detour. There is ample room behind the curb lines for the contractor to setup scaffold and 

stage materials, so the beam seat work will not require a closure. The only WZTC requirement at this 

location would be to provide a temporary fence in front of the curb line on each side of the street to 

delineate the work zone. No pedestrian traffic utilizes this street to access the parking areas south of 

the bridge. 

Additional Work on the Water Street and Centre Street Bridges 

The proposed work during these shutdowns will consist of lifting bridge girders, shifting to new seats and 

removing and reattaching track panels. During the shutdown periods, the detour route would be: Colonie 

Street to Erie Boulevard to North Ferry Street to Orange Street. 

Both bridges will be closed concurrently. Work will be done on weekends when the OGS lots are not in 

use and can be closed and RR traffic can be restricted. 

The same WZTC will be required for Build Alternatives 1 & 2. 

Impacts of Alternatives 

The impacts to adjacent streets and highways due to construction of each build alternative are 

summarized below: 

Main Bridge Construction – Build Alternative 1: 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

27 

 Temporary closures of Quay Street during construction of proposed west abutment and west end 

span for pile driving and span lifting. Detour via US 9 ramp to Broadway to North Ferry Street to Erie 

Boulevard. 

 OGS Lot #11, under I-787 overpass between Quay Street and track embankment, will require partial 

closure or have limited use during some phases of work. 

 During the Quay Street closure, access to the Corning Preserve parking area south of the railroad 

crossing may be closed due to one way (NB) traffic pattern. Access for trail use can be maintained 

from north of Quay Street via safety canopy over the Bike-Hike Trail. Two options to maintain 

vehicular access to the Preserve parking area are presented above. 

 Provide a canopy to cover trail segment under bridge during construction. Close access during 

periods of heavy lifts or other such hazardous operations. 

 Quay Street and Colonie Street can temporarily become 2-way to provide access to the boat 

launch from Erie Boulevard. Current access points are from Water Street and northbound Quay 

Street only. 

Main Bridge Construction – Build Alternative 2: 

 Impacts to adjacent streets and highways will be the same as for Alternative #1 

Approach Bridges: 

 Closure of Water or Centre Street from Quay Street to Livingston Avenue for duration of proposed 

bridge beam seat construction work. Redirect traffic to Centre or Water Street for access to OGS lots 

#12 A & B and Water Street beyond. Large truck traffic will be restricted from using the Colonie Street 

exit from southbound I-787. 

 Pedestrian walkway along Water Street shall be relocated to Centre Street for duration of the Water 

Street bridge construction. 

 Concurrent closure of Water and Centre Street for weekend bridge resetting. 

Sight Distance Analysis – Quay Street 

Quay Street is a local-urban street. It is a one-way street, northbound, with a single 15.3 foot wide travel 

lane, a 4.5 foot shoulder on the left side and a 10 foot shoulder on the right. The right shoulder serves as 

the pedestrian/bicycle trail for the Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail and is separated from the travel lane 

by a box beam guiderail through the project limits. This single lane is maintained to the proximity of the I787 overpass, where it widens to add a second lane to meet the Water Street intersection, which is signal 

controlled. 

The south approach to the bridge site on Quay Street has a posted speed limit of 30 mph. At the Corning 

Preserve driveway, approximately 140 feet south of the bridge site, there is a W1-2 warning sign for the 

existing horizontal left curve under the Livingston Avenue Bridge. This sign also has a W13-1P posted 

warning speed of 25 mph. Within the limits of the curve there are five W1-8 chevron signs posted. All 

of these signs are consistent with the FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (NMUTCD), 

Table 2C-5 since the posted curve speed is 5 mph less than the posted speed limit, and are warranted 

because most of the horizontal curve is not visible to traffic approaching the bridge site because of the 

abutment location. The existing curve radius is 250 feet, which is the minimum for the 30 mph posted 

speed limit. A W3-3 signal ahead sign, just east of the I-787 overpass, provides advance warning of the 

signal at Water Street. Its placement is used for additional emphasis to the signal rather than a deficient 

sight distance since the signal is visible for a distance in excess of the minimum stopping sight distance of 

200 feet. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

28 

Adjacent to the north side of the bridge and on the inside of the curve is the OGS parking lot (Lot #11) 

with an entrance/exit under the I-787 overpass. To the outside of the curve is the event parking lot under 

the overpass. This lot is maintained by the City and is used for access to the river boat launch site, 

Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail and parking for events on the river and Corning Preserve. 

The vertical grades on Quay Street are flat and will have minimal impact on sight distance. While the 

existing abutment does obstruct the driver’s sight triangle, it is not the only obstruction encroaching into 

the sight distance triangle. The parking lot, OGS Lot #11, on the inside of the curve will be the 

obstructing encroachment in the driver’s sight triangle should the abutment be moved further west. The 

perimeter fence around the parking lot has tall weeds, small bushes and a few small trees growing 

adjacent to and on it. The parking lot grade is also slightly above the grade of Quay Street. The parked 

vehicles, which include shuttle buses, often use the spaces fronting on Quay Street providing restrictions 

to the driver’s sight lines. 

The horizontal sight distance equation (NYSDOT HDM; Chap 5, Sect 5.7.2.4) was used to determine the 

minimum offset required to the abutment face to meet the sight distance criteria. The southern corner 

of the abutment was assumed to be the obstructing feature encroaching into the driver’s sight lines as the 

vehicle approaches the bridge site. 

The calculated minimum offset required for the existing condition using the posted speed of 30 mph and 

a 200 foot minimum sight distance is 19.7 ft from the center of travel lane to the encroaching obstruction. 

The existing condition measured from the southern corner of the abutment to centerline of the travel lane 

was measured graphically at 22.3 feet. Since the measured existing offset exceeds the minimum 

required for the design speed there is no encroachment on the sight distance. 

The sight distances for each of the alternatives were analyzed solely based on the relocation of the 

proposed abutment and the impacts of the proposed alternatives are described below: 

Alternative 1 will move the proposed abutment 10 feet west of its present location. Alternative 2 will move 

the abutment 20 feet west of its present location and also shifts the centerline of the proposed structure 

50 feet south of the present alignment. 

Each of the proposed alternatives move the abutment further back from the roadway, increasing the 

offset to the obstruction and will improve the sight distance past the abutment for the approaching 

motorist. While Alternative 2 moves the proposed abutment the least amount, it shifts the alignment 

to the south and places the abutment near the beginning Point of Curvature for this Quay Street curve. 

This still allows the driver to see further along the curve sooner than the existing abutment location. All 

of the proposed alternatives will improve the approaching sight triangle. 

However, by opening up the sight triangle, approaching drivers will also see more of the parking lot on the 

inside of the curve. The parked vehicles or movement of vehicles within the lot will present the more 

restrictive obstruction to the sight triangle of the approaching driver. 

Any significant increase in the radius of the curve will remove available parking spaces in the front 

row and push the curve closer to the Water Street intersection. Since the existing curvature meets criteria 

it may remain. Pending review of traffic accident data, if no defined pattern attributable to sight distance is 

identified, the geometry should be left as is. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

29 

3.2.3. INFRASTRUCTURE 

3.2.3.1. Proposed Rail Segment 

The two proposed alternatives will use 136# RE continuous welded rail on wood ties through the 

unballasted lift span and concrete ties off of the structure. The design speed for the mainline track is 30 

MPH for passenger trains (using a maximum underbalance of 3”) and 25 MPH for freight trains (using a 

maximum underbalance of 1 1⁄2”). The design speed for the wye track is 15 MPH for passenger trains 

(using a maximum underbalance of 3”) and 10 MPH for freight trains (using a maximum underbalance of 

1 1⁄2”). 

Open Deck Lift Bridge Track Joint System 

New designs for movable rails and lift bridges have been evaluated based on historical data since the 

existing track sliding joint was installed. These revised designs currently use a 3-piece joint which 

offers a low initial cost, long life, and satisfactory maintenance requirements for the railroad. This three 

piece joint design uses new lengths of running rail for two parts of the assembly and a manganese lift or 

rider rail for the third. Similar to the current swing bridge design, a riser rail is used at the center, 

field side of the joint to transition the train wheels smoothly from the fixed running rail to the riser rail 

and back to the fixed running rail attached to the lift span. The major difference between the existing 

and proposed designs is that no sliding rails, with their required mechanical actuators, are required in the 

proposed layout. Generally, the lift bridge running rail, its mounting plate, and the manganese rider rail 

are all attached to the lift structure and move with the lift span. The remaining third piece of the joint 

remains rigidly affixed to the stationary bridge section. 

Build Alternative 1 

This alternative alignment shifts the bridge to the north. The alignment offset between the centerline of 

the existing north track to the centerline of the proposed south track varies from 9’ at the west abutment 

to 190’ at the east abutment. This alignment causes the largest shift in the tracks along the entire 

alignment, especially at the east end going into Albany-Rensselaer Station and the wye track. 

The track profile is 0% over the movable portion of the bridge. The proposed grades match closely 

with the existing grades. 

The east approach is modified to replace the #8 right hand turnout to the wye track with a #10 left hand 

turnout. This will allow the p r i m a r y move to Albany-Rensselaer Station t o b e the straight move 

through the turnout rather than the turning move. Trains using the north leg of the wye track would use 

the diverging move. The degree of curve for the wye track is decreased to 13°-30’. The proposed 

mainline curve into Albany-Rensselaer Station is Dc = 10°. The alignment will match the proposed 

alignment for the Albany-Rensselaer Station improvement project. At the west approach of the bridge, 

the curves will be modified with a single curve with Dc = 4°-50’. 

Build Alternative 2 

This alternative alignment shifts the bridge to the south and parallel to the existing track alignment. The 

shift is 38’ from centerline of the existing south track to the centerline of the proposed north track. The 

west end of the bridge will remain on tangent track. 

The track profile is 0% over the movable portion of the bridge. The proposed grades match closely 

with the existing grades. 

The east approach would be modified to replace the #8 right hand turnout to the wye track with a #10 left 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

30 

hand turnout. This will allow the primary move to Albany-Rensselaer Station to be the straight move 

through the turnout rather than the turning move. Trains using the north leg of the wye track would 

use the diverging move. The degree of curve for the wye track is decreased to 13°-30’. The 

proposed mainline curve into Albany-Rensselaer Station is Dc = 10°. The alignment will match the 

proposed alignment for the Albany-Rensselaer Station improvement project. At the west approach to 

the bridge, the existing curves will be modified using a single curve with Dc = 3°. 

3.2.3.2. Special Geometric Design Elements 

3.2.3.2.1 Non-Standard Features 

The proposed mainline tracks will have 14’ centers to the east of the bridge to match the proposed 

alignment for the Albany-Rensselaer Station 4th Track Project. The 14’ centers will be continued over 

the proposed bridge. To the west of the bridge the proposed track centers taper to match the existing 

track centers. 

The north leg of the proposed wye track has a 13°-30’ degree of curve. This is greater than the 

maximum 12°-30’ degree of curve which is the Amtrak design standard. However, Amtrak has 

accepted this tight curve in order to eliminate or minimize the impact to the bridge of the No.8 turnout to 

the north leg of the wye track. 

3.2.3.3. Drainage Systems 

Existing open drainage ditches will be cleaned as part of all feasible alternatives. A SPDES Permit 

will be required for all feasible alternatives, where permanent treatment for stormwater quality may be 

required. Other work will consist of rerouting existing drainage ditches and culverts through 

embankments. 

3.2.3.4. Geotechnical 

Because the existing timber piles likely do not bear on the subsurface rock layer, consideration of 

vibrations and possible settlement of existing substructure units should be given during the installation of 

any new deep foundations particularly where they are in relatively close proximity. Pre-drilled piles, micropiles, drilled shafts, or other deep foundation resulting in less vibration than driven piles may need to be 

considered. 

3.2.3.5. Structures 

As this is a bridge rehabilitation or replacement project, the descriptions of alternatives in Section 3.1 

discuss the type of work, type of bridge, number of spans, horizontal and vertical clearances and design 

criteria in detail and are not repeated here. 

3.2.3.5.1 Description of Work 

See Section 3.1 for the Description of Work for each feasible alternative. 
November 2019 Final Preliminary Design Report PIN 1935.49 

31 

3.2.3.5.2 Clearances (Horizontal/Vertical) 

The vertical and horizontal clearances are provided in Exhibit 3.1.1 for the two feasible alternatives. 

3.2.3.5.3 Live Load 

The proposed design live load is Normal Cooper E-80 for the two feasible alternatives. 

3.2.3.5.4 Associated Work 

As described in Section 3.1 for each feasible alternative. 

3.2.3.5.5 Waterway 

A United States Coast Guard Permit will be required as all feasible alternatives will impact the navigable 

waterway crossed by the project structure. The existing 25 foot vertical clearance underneath the 

structure will remain. 

3.2.3.6. Hydraulics of Bridges and Culverts 

A preliminary hydraulic evaluation of the existing bridge was performed by the NYSDOT Regional 

Hydraulic Engineer. 

All of the replacement alternatives are expected to have minimal impacts to the water surface elevations. 

The existing top of rail elevation has been raised 2 feet to accommodate a deeper floor system. 

Based on the 1979 Flood Insurance Study prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), the water surface elevation for the base (100-yr) flood is approximately 25 feet below the low 

steel of the existing bridge. All replacement alternatives locate the west abutment to the west of the 

existing, which increases the hydraulic opening. Alternative 2 reduces the number of piers from the 

existing nine to eight (each lift span tower has 2 piers), thereby further increasing the hydraulic opening. 

Alternative 1 has nine piers that are larger in cross section than the existing cross section in order to 

accommodate the skewed bridge alignment. The increase in cross section of these piers is not expected 

to significantly impact the hydraulic opening of the structure.

A detailed hydraulic analysis will be prepared during detailed final design. 
NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE Figure 3-1

2.22.19

 Alternative 1 – Replacement on an Adjacent Alignment to the North
NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE Figure 3-2

2.22.19

Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) – Replacement on an Adjacent Alignment to the South
NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE Figure 3-3a

2.22.19

North Alignment Shared Use Path Option: 

 West Access Ramp
NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE Figure 3-3b

2.22.19

North Alignment Shared Use Path Option: 

East Access Ramp
NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

2.22.19

South Alignment Shared Use Path Option: 

West Access Ramp

Figure 3-4a
NYSDOT LIVINGSTON AVENUE BRIDGE

2.22.19

South Alignment Shared Use Path Option: 

East Access Ramp

Figure 3-4b
APPENDIX A 

2015 IN-DEPTH INSPECTION REPORT 

(Report Appendices B, D through H not included in this report) 

 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Page

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 

SUBSTRUCTURE ................................................................................................................... 3 

SUPERSTRUCTURE............................................................................................................... 7 

 Bearings ....................................................................................................................... 7 

 Through Truss Spans .................................................................................................. 8 

 Through Truss Swing Spans ........................................................................................ 9 

 Through Girder Spans ................................................................................................. 9 

 Lateral Bracing ............................................................................................................ 10 

 Floor System ............................................................................................................... 10 

 Paint Protection ........................................................................................................... 11 

 Deck ............................................................................................................................ 11 

 Maintenance Walkway, Access Platforms and Railings ............................................... 11 

LOAD RATING SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 11 

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................... 14 

 Span Drive Machinery .................................................................................................. 14 

 Span Support Machinery ............................................................................................. 15 

 End Floorbeam Machinery ........................................................................................... 16 

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS ....................................................................................................... 17 

 Bridge Power Distribution System ................................................................................ 17 

 Span Operating Motors and Brakes ............................................................................ 18 

 Swing Span Control System ........................................................................................ 20 

 Lighting ......................................................................................................................... 21 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 22 

APPENDIX A 

 Location Map 

 Inspection Plan 

 Machinery Figures 

APPENDIX B 

Table 1 - Superstructure Deficiencies ...................................................................... B1 

 Table 2 - Pedestrian Walkway and Access Platform Deficiencies ........................... B13 

 Table 3 - Floorbeam Top Flange Rivet Heads with 50-100% Section Loss ............. B15 

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

APPENDIX C 

 Inspection Photographs 

APPENDIX D 

 AMTRAK Bridge Inventory and Inspection Forms 

APPENDIX E 

 Not Used - Load Rating Calculations Provided Under Separate Cover 

APPENDIX F 

 Mechanical Inspection Field Notes 

APPENDIX G 

 Bearing Clearances and Open Gear Backlash 

APPENDIX H 

 Diving Inspection Report 

ii
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -1-

2015 IN-DEPTH INSPECTION REPORT 

of the 

LIVINGSTON AVENUE RAILROAD BRIDGE 

Introduction

The structural, mechanical, electrical and underwater inspection findings of the 2015 Indepth Inspection of the Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge are summarized in the following report 

and are supplemented with repair recommendations following the text portion of the report as well 

as inspection photographs representing typical and specific findings. The inspection photographs 

can be found in Appendix C of this report. Amtrak inspection forms are also included and can be 

found in Appendix D of this report. 

 The Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge has two sets of tracks and carries bi-directional rail 

traffic over the Hudson River, connecting Albany and Rensselaer, New York (see Photograph S1). 

The substructure consists of a masonry west abutment, 9 masonry piers, and a concrete east 

abutment. The superstructure of the bridge has ten spans that consist of four through-girder spans 

(ranging from 68’ to 74’-10”), four stationary through-truss spans (175’), and a two span throughtruss swing span (260’), for a total of approximately 1,250’ in length. The bridge deck components 

consist of wood ties with two sets of rail tracks, a steel grate maintenance walkway and a 

cantilevered wood decked maintenance sidewalk (over a portion of the bridge). The rails are 

supported by a built-up stringer-floorbeam system, which transfers loads to the truss and girder 

members. 

This 2015 Inspection was performed for the New York State Department of Transportation 

(NYSDOT) and Amtrak during the period of December 8 through December 18, 2015. The 

structural inspection was conducted by Messrs. S.E. Darley, P.E. (Team Leader) and M.J. Willms, 

E.I.T. of Modjeski and Masters; and A. M. Lachina, PE and F. Gerges of Prudent Engineering. The 

mechanical inspection was conducted by Messrs. R. C. Hoffman, P.E. and J. R. Hess, E.I.T. of 

Modjeski and Masters. The electrical inspection was conducted by Messrs. Q. C. Ton, PE and J. 

W. Newman, P.E. of Modjeski and Masters. 

The superstructure was found to be in fair-to-poor condition due to issues with the bearings 

and isolated areas of significant deterioration of the structural steel. The substructure was found to 

be in poor-to-serious condition due primarily to substructure undermining (scour), shifted and 

displaced stonework, and previously documented severe deterioration of timber piles, timber 

cribbing and displaced material from within the cribbing. The fender system at the swing span piers 

is generally in poor-to-serious condition with isolated areas in a failed condition, due to undermining 

and deterioration of the timber components. 

The upper portion of the through deck trusses and swing span trusses were accessed 

utilizing technical access solo climbing while the lower portion of these spans were inspected 

utilizing safety lines rigged along the bottom chords by Modjeski and Masters, Inc. (see 

Photographs S2 and S3). A bucket boat equipped with a 60’ boom was utilized to access the floor 

system, truss metalwork and exposed portions of the river piers in Spans 1 through 6 (see 

Photograph S4). A Tracker T-44 was utilized to access the superstructure and substructure units in 

Spans 6 through 9 (see Photograph S5). The topside of the track and pedestrian walkway were 

accessed by walking. The mechanical and electrical portions were inspected by accessing the 

swing span pier top as well as the operations building atop the center of the swing span. Amtrak 

personnel provided railroad protection and flagging throughout the course of the inspection. 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -2-

An underwater inspection of the river piers was performed by W. J. Castle and Assoc. on 

December 9 through December 11. The underwater inspection report can be found in Appendix H 

of this report. 

 For reference purposes, the inspection plans with span and panel point labeling used 

throughout this report are found in Appendix A. Designations used throughout this report for the 

trusses, girders and bearings are labeled north/south and east/west with the north side of the bridge 

being the “left” side and the west side being the “begin” side. Panel Points are numbered west-toeast, beginning with Reference Point 0 located at the beginning of each truss of each span. All the 

stringers are numbered north-to south (upstream-to-downstream). The floorbeams are numbered by 

their respective panel point number in the through truss spans and are labeled from 0 (begin) to 4 

(end) in the through girder spans. 

RATING DESCRIPTION MAINTENANCE/REPAIR 

CATEGORY 

Excellent New or like new condition with no 

noteworthy deficiencies No maintenance required 

Good Some minor deficiencies Minor maintenance required 

Fair 

Primary structural elements are sound and 

functioning as designed, but may have 

moderate deterioration, section loss, 

cracking or spalling 

Major maintenance/repair required 

Poor 

Advanced deterioration, section loss, 

cracking or spalling that has reduced the 

capacity of the member 

Major repair/rehabilitation required 

in the near future 

Serious 

Deterioration has seriously affected and 

reduced the capacity of the member and 

there is a concern about the member’s 

ability to perform its designed function 

Repair or rehabilitation required 

immediately 

Failed Component is no longer capable of 

performing its design function. Emergency repairs are necessary. 

LEVELS OF STEEL SURFACE CORROSION 

Minor Lack of paint and a fine layer of corrosion that can be removed by rubbing with a 

cloth 

Moderate Lack of paint and a layer of corrosion that can be removed by light wire brushing

Significant Lack of paint and a layer of corrosion that shows separation from the metal 

surface, but no appreciable section loss 

Severe Lack of paint and a layer of corrosion that shows separation from the surface, and 

loss of section are evident 

 Other descriptive terms used throughout the report include the following. Bolt deficiencies 

are described in the report as either "loose" (the bolt or nut can be moved by hand) or "untightened" 

(the bolt head or nut is not bearing on the steel of the connection, but the shank is tight in the hole). 

 Concrete is defined as unsound or delaminated when it is hollow sounding when struck with a 

hammer, and is generally characterized by cracking or voids in the underlying concrete down to the 

level of the reinforcing steel. 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -3-

SUBSTRUCTURE

General

The substructure units are in overall poor condition with several isolated areas that are in poor-toserious condition. The specific deficiencies found at each of the piers and the east and west 

abutment are summarized as follows: 

West Abutment - (Abutment “S”)

The west abutment is in overall fair condition (see Photograph S6). The abutment backwall 

typically exhibits minor map cracking with a few 1/16” wide full-height cracks; however, no unsound 

concrete was noted in the backwall. On the bridge seat as well as around the truss bearings, there 

is a significant accumulation of debris up to 12” deep (see Photograph S7). Typically the pointing 

between the stone courses of the abutment stemwall and wingwalls is in fair condition with sporadic 

areas of missing or deteriorated pointing. The upper portions of the wingwalls, consisting of 

concrete, typically exhibit minor map cracking with efflorescence and rust staining. At the upper 

east corner of the south wingwall, there is a 3’’ long, 1-1/2” wide crack in the upper concrete portion 

and upper stone course of the wingwall (see Photograph S8). 

Pier 1 - (Pier “R”)

 Pier 1 is in serious condition due to undermining and shifted stones of the substructure unit. 

 The upper concrete portion of the pier had widespread map cracking with rust staining and 

efflorescence with intermittent vertical cracks up to 1/8” wide. There are several locations where the 

masonry stones that rest on top of the upper concrete portion of the pier have numerous full-width 

horizontal cracks where the blocks are deteriorating causing the stone to spall (see Photograph 

S9). 

 The north nose of the pier has several displaced masonry blocks near the waterline with 

gaps between adjacent blocks up to 6” wide exposing the stone fill between the masonry stones 

(see Photograph S10). It appears that these displaced masonry blocks are caused by the 

undermining taking place beneath the masonry stones below the waterline as described in the 

Structural Flag Report WJC #10-2223-15 in the 2015 Underwater Inspection Report found in 

Appendix D of this report. The majority of the pointing between the masonry blocks in the tidal zone 

is missing. There is also a severely deteriorating masonry stone at the north nose at the 9th course 

below the upper concrete portion of the pier (refer to Photograph S10). 

 The navigation lights at the north end of the pier top are not functioning due to a missing 

solar navigation light and a missing light bulb in the hard-wired navigation light (see Photograph 

S11). The south end of the pier has two abandoned electrical conduits attached to the pier with 

several other abandoned electrical conduits and boxes on the pier top. 

Pier 2N – (Pier “P”)

 Pier 2N is in serious condition due to undermining of the substructure and deterioration of 

the fender system. The top masonry stones of the pier are significantly deteriorated with numerous 

horizontal cracks and areas of scaling found throughout. The top of the pier is covered with 

vegetation growth. Approximately 25-50% of the pointing between the masonry stone is missing 

and/or deteriorated with vegetation growing in several of the joints between stones. 


Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -6-

 The north nose of the pier has several displaced stones near the waterline. At the time of 

the 2015 Inspection, the wood pile cap beneath the coping stones was exposed along the length of 

the pier (see Photograph S20). The lower three courses of the coping stones at or below the 

waterline appear to be missing the majority of the pointing between the stones with numerous 

settled/displaced stones throughout (see Photograph S21). 

Pier 7 – (Pier “J”)

 The top course of masonry stones has several full width horizontal cracks in the stones with 

adjacent hollow areas which appear to be caused by the deterioration of the stones (see 

Photograph S22). 

 The north nose of the pier has several displaced stones near the waterline with gaps 

between the stones up to 4” wide exposing the stone fill between the masonry stones (see 

Photograph S23). The majority of the pointing between the stones in the lower three courses at or 

below the waterline is missing with a few corner spalls noted in the bottom stone course below the 

waterline. 

Pier 8 – (Pier “I”)

 The concrete portion of the pier just below the pier top has widespread map cracking with 

efflorescence and numerous unsound and spalled areas throughout (see Photograph S24). The 

concrete within the spalled areas were found to be “punky” and breaks up easily under hammer 

tapping. The pointing between the coping stones is in fair condition with sporadic areas of missing 

and deteriorated pointing. 

 At the south end of the pier, there is a 1/4” wide crack that propagates downward through 

the concrete portion at the top of the pier and continues through two courses on the east face of the 

pier and through six courses on the west side of the pier (see Photograph S25). The east face of 

the pier at this location also has a number of full-height cracks in the stones between the crack and 

the water level. 

Pier 9 – (Pier “H”)

 The concrete portion of the pier just below the pier top has widespread map cracking with a 

number of vertical cracks ranging from 1/16” to 1/4” wide. There are several coping stones 

throughout the pier with full-height cracks with numerous areas of sporadic missing and 

deteriorated pointing. 

East Abutment – (Abutment “G”)

The east abutment typically has varying degrees of map cracking throughout with numerous 

partial and full-height vertical cracks noted throughout the stemwall and wingwalls (see Photograph 

S26). The backwall exhibits three full-height, 1/4” wide cracks with edge spalling up to 4” wide 

located 4’ south of the south girder, 4’-6” north of the south girder and directly below the north 

girder. The bridge seat and upper portion of the south wingwall adjacent to the crack south of the 

south girder has a large area of severe scaling with several loose pieces of concrete. The end 10’ of 

the abutment backwall at the south end also exhibits severe scaling up to 6” deep. The bridge seat 

of the abutment has a moderate accumulation of debris which is causing accelerated corrosion of 

the superstructure metalwork. 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -7-

The north wingwall of the abutment has widespread map cracking with moderate 

efflorescence. The upper portion of the wingwall has a 10’ long, 1/4” wide crack/separation between 

the bridge seat and the wingwall. The south wingwall exhibits significant map cracking with large 

areas of spalling and scaling (see Photograph S27). 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Bearings

 The truss, girder and stringer bearings are in overall poor condition with the greatest amount 

of deterioration found at the wedge bearings of the swing spans at Pier 1 (Pier “R”) and Pier 3 (Pier 

“N”). 

 The fixed through truss bearings were found to be in fair condition with minor deficiencies 

noted. The expansion bearings for the through truss spans were found to be in poor condition as 

there appears to be no signs of movement at any of the nested roller bearings due to severe 

corrosion between the rollers (see Photograph S28). It was also noted that the Span 3 expansion 

bearings are in the fully expanded position (refer to Photograph S28). There is a significant amount 

of debris that has accumulated around the expansion bearings at the east and west abutments. 

 The wedge bearings of the swing through truss spans were found to be in poor condition. 

The wedge plates as well as the upper and lower bearing castings have areas of excessive wear 

that have resulted in gaps of 1/8” to 3/16” between the wedge plates and the upper bearing casting 

and between the wedge plate and the lower bearing casting (see Photograph S29). During the 2015 

Inspection, each of the wedge bearings was inspected during the passage of trains. It was found 

that each of the bearings had excessive vertical movement resulting from the excessive wear 

mentioned above. Each of the bearings would lift upward when the train loads were in the adjacent 

swing span and then deflect downward when the loads were in the span being observed, creating a 

“see-saw” effect. The total deflection upward and downward was found to be approximately 1”. In 

addition to these vertical movements, it was noted that at the south truss bearing at Pier 3, the 

lower bearing casting and masonry plate would pump 1/8” to 1/4” vertically under each axle load of 

the passing trains. The majority of the anchor bolts at this bearing are untight due to the pumping 

action of the lower bearing casting (see Photograph S30). At the north truss bearing at Pier 3, the 

northwest anchor bolt is broken (see Photograph S31). 

 The bearings for the through girder spans have numerous broken, missing and severely 

corroded anchor bolts (see Photograph S32 and S33). It was also noted that a number of the 

bearings exhibit indications that the end of the spans have shifted laterally at some point (see 

Photographs S34 and S35). The specific through girder bearing deficiencies are listed in the table 

below: 

THROUGH GIRDER DEFICIENT ANCHOR BOLTS 

SPAN GIRDER DEFICIENCY 

6 North 

At Pier 7, the northwest anchor bolt is broken. 

At Pier 7, it appears that the Span 6 girders have shifted south 

approximately 1/2” at a previous time evidenced by the wear into 

the slots of the girder bearing sole plates. 

7 North 

At Pier 7, the northeast and northwest anchor bolts are broken and 

the southeast anchor bolt has over 50% section loss and is bent

toward the southwest. 

At Pier 8, the northeast and northwest anchor bolts are broken.
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -8-

THROUGH GIRDER DEFICIENT ANCHOR BOLTS 

SPAN GIRDER DEFICIENCY 

7 

(Cont.) 

North/South 

At Pier 8, it appears that the Span 7 girders have shifted south 

approximately 5/8” at a previous time evidenced by the wear into 

the slots of the girder bearing sole plates. 

South At Pier 8, the southeast and northeast anchor bolts have 50% 

section loss. 

8 

North At Pier 8, the northeast anchor bolt has 50% section loss. 

South At Pier 8, the southwest anchor bolt has 90% section loss and the 

southeast anchor bolt has 50% section loss. 

North At Pier 9, the northwest and southeast anchor bolts are 

broken/missing and the northeast anchor bolt has 90% section loss.

South 

At Pier 9, the southwest and northwest anchor bolts are 

broken/missing and the southeast anchor bolt has 80% section 

loss. 

- 

At Pier 9, it appears that the Span 8 girders have shifted to the 

north slightly, evidenced by the misalignment of the southeast 

anchor bolt of the south girder. 

9 

North At the east abutment, the northeast and northwest anchor bolts are 

missing. 

South At the east abutment, the southwest anchor bolt is broken and the 

northeast anchor bolt has 80% section loss. 

 At Pier 6, the Span 5 through trusses are in contact with the Span 6 through girders at an 

ambient temperature of 45°F (see Photograph S36). There were no signs of structural distress at 

the time of the inspection; however, the spalling occurring in the masonry block below the north 

girder bearing as described in the “Substructure“ section of this report may be related. 

 The stringer expansion bearings were found to be in overall fair condition with the exception 

of the locations that were found to have broken/missing anchors bolts at the following locations: 

 Span 3, Panel Point 0’, All Stringers – All anchors bolts are missing (see Photograph S37) 

 Span 7, Floorbeam 0, Stringer 4 – (1) broken/missing anchor bolt 

 Span 8, Floorbeam 4, Stringer 3 – (1) broken/missing anchor bolt 

Through Truss Spans

 The through-truss spans (Spans 1, 3, 4, and 5) are in overall fair condition with isolated 

areas of significant corrosion typically found below track level. 

The top chords and upper portions of the truss verticals and diagonals are in good structural 

condition with only minor deficiencies noted that include, but are not limited to: crevice corrosion up 

to 1” spread between the lacing bars and flange angles, minor impact damage, and paint failures 

with minor surface corrosion. 

The majority of the deterioration found on the gusset plates and bottom chords of the 

through truss spans is directly above the lower lateral connection plates or along the inboard bottom 

flange angle of the bottom chords (see Photograph S38, S39 and S40). The section losses on the 

lower portions of the gusset plates were typically between 2” to 6” high and 1/8” to 3/16” deep on 

3/4” thick gusset plates. Other deficiencies include bottom chord lacing bars and batten plates that 

exhibit cracks, crevice corrosion, severe section loss, and corrosion holes (see Photograph S41). 

Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -10-

For specific locations and descriptions of the girder metalwork deficiencies noted refer to 

Table 1 of Appendix B. 

Lateral Bracing

The lateral bracing throughout the superstructure is in fair-to-poor condition. There are 

numerous locations with severe crevice corrosion, section loss and deterioration of the connection 

fasteners. 

In the through truss spans, there is typically moderate-to-significant section loss to the lower 

lateral connection plates where dirt and debris has accumulated on the horizontal surfaces of the 

connection plates (see Photograph S51). There are several locations where there is severe crevice 

corrosion and section loss of the lower lateral bracing angles, predominately found adjacent to the 

bottom flanges of the stringers and floorbeams of the floor system (see Photograph S52 and S53). 

The upper lateral bracing of the through truss spans typically has no paint coating which has 

allowed the bracing angles to slowly corrode over a long period of time resulting in 25-75% section 

loss throughout. There were a number of locations noted with corrosion holes in the upper lateral 

bracing angles (see Photograph S54). The portal bracing of the through trusses is in overall fair 

condition with typical corrosion and section loss where debris has accumulated along the upturned 

angles of the lower portions of the bracing with some locations noted to have corrosion holes. 

In the through girder spans, the upper lateral bracing and connection plates had been 

replaced previously and remain in overall good condition. The lower lateral bracing has not been 

replaced and is in overall fair-to-poor condition. As stated above, the connection plates have areas 

of 25-75% section loss where dirt and debris has accumulated on the horizontal surfaces of the 

plates with a few locations exhibiting corrosion holes. The most severely deteriorated connection 

plate was found at the east abutment (see Photograph S55). Other deficiencies noted included 

severe crevice corrosion, disconnected and severely corroded rivets, and moderate-to-significant 

section loss of the lower lateral bracing angles (see Photograph S56). 

For specific locations and descriptions of the lateral bracing deficiencies noted during the 

2015 Inspection, refer to Table 1 in Appendix B of this report. 

Floor System 

The floor system remains in overall fair condition with isolated areas of minor-to-moderate 

section loss. Generally, the greatest areas of section loss found are where debris has accumulated 

on the horizontal surfaces of the top and bottom flanges which has accelerated the corrosion of 

these areas. 

The top flange cover plates of the floorbeams typically have moderate pitting and section 

loss of 1/8” to 3/16” deep throughout the top flanges. There are numerous rivet heads throughout 

the top flanges of the floorbeams found to have 50-100% section loss which have been tabulated in 

Table 3 of Appendix B (see Photograph S57). The bottom flange angles and cover plates of the 

floorbeams also have isolated areas of 1/8” to 1/4” pitting with several locations noted with 

corrosion holes in the sections of the bottom cover plates that overhang the bottom flange angles 

(see Photograph S58). 

 The stringers were found to be in overall fair condition with typical section loss found 

throughout the top flanges of the stringers as well as intermittent section loss along the bottom 

flanges and stiffeners (see Photographs S59 and S60). 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -11-

Paint Protection

 The paint system throughout the length of the bridge is in poor condition. The paint system 

appears to consist of a lead-based primer with a black “grease paint” applied as the top coat. 

Approximately 50 to 75% of the paint system is missing entirely with surface corrosion of the 

underlying steel (refer to Photograph S49). The remaining areas with paint are typically very brittle 

with cracking throughout. 

Deck 

 The timber ties of the deck are in overall fair condition with minor-to-moderate splitting and 

checking found throughout the ties. There are a few timber ties noted with rotting areas which are 

mainly found near the end floorbeams of the spans. 

 The rails are in overall fair condition with a number of locations noted with fretting corrosion 

and minor-to-moderate wear on the connection bolts and metalwork of the rail joints. 

Maintenance Walkway, Access Platforms and Railings 

 The pedestrian walkway, access platforms and railings throughout the length of the bridge 

are in serious condition with widespread deterioration of the metalwork and timber planking. There 

is a gate erected at Pier 6 (to prevent pedestrians from using the walkway) that has a large section 

of missing railing, numerous missing/severely deteriorated timber planks and numerous areas of 

severe corrosion and section loss (see Photograph S61 and S62).

 There are several sections of the pedestrian walkway as well as numerous access platforms 

where the timber planks are severely rotted and/or missing. 

 The railings of the pedestrian walkway have numerous locations where the railing posts are 

completely corroded and/or are disconnected which has severely affected the integrity of the railing 

(see Photograph S63). 

 Due to the current condition of the pedestrian walkway, it is recommended that the 

pedestrian walkway continue to not be used until significant repairs/rehabilitation are made to the 

railing and walkway support metalwork. 

 For specific locations and descriptions of the deficiencies noted throughout the pedestrian 

walkway refer to Table 2 of Appendix B. 

 

Load Rating Summary

 Upon completion of the inspection, as-built and as-inspected load ratings were performed in 

accordance with the 2015 AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering. The load ratings calculated 

Normal and Maximum Cooper E Rating factors for three loading cases; Double Track operation with 

a 40 mph speed limit, Double Track operation with a 15 mph speed limit and Single Track operation 

with a 15 mph speed limit. The truss span gusset plates were also inspected, analyzed and rated 

using the 2010 AASHTO Manual for Bridge Evaluation (MBE), 2nd Edition, with 2011, 2013 and 

2014 interims with additional AREMA guidance. In addition, Amtrak-provided passenger and freight 

loadings were respectively used to generate Normal and Maximum ratings and capacity-to-demand 

ratios for both bridge members and truss gussets. The Amtrak-provided loadings were only applied 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -12-

to the existing operating condition of the bridge (single track condition at a speed of 15 mph in the 

as-inspected condition). 

The gusset plate load ratings do not control over the member load ratings for either the as-built or 

as-inspected case. The gusset plate load rating results do not meet current AREMA design 

guidance of Cooper E-65 for rehabilitation of existing superstructures and Cooper E-80 for new 

structures. A summary table of the controlling gusset locations and Cooper E ratings is included in 

the table below. 

Gusset Plate Load Ratings 

Controlling As‐Inspected E‐Ratings

No. of

Tracks Speed Span Normal Rating Maximum Rating

Member E‐Rating Controlling Member E Rating Controlling

Single 15

mph

174’‐0” L4‐M5 E73 Rivet Shear  ‐  E87 Overall Splice

260’‐3” U6‐M7 E85 Partial Plane

Shear Yielding ‐  E116 Overall Splice

Double 15

mph

174’‐0” L4‐M5 E52 Rivet Shear  ‐  E63 Overall Splice

260’‐3” L1‐M1 E61 Rivet Shear U6‐M7 E97 Partial Plane

Shear Yielding

Double 40

mph

174’‐0” L4‐M5 E48 Rivet Shear  ‐  E57 Overall Splice

260’‐3” L1‐M1 E53 Rivet Shear U6‐M7 E80 Partial Plane

Shear Yielding

Controlling As‐Inspected Capacity‐to‐Demand Ratios (per Amtrak EP‐4003)

No. of Tracks Speed Span Normal C/D Ratios Maximum C/D Ratios

100% 125% 125%

Single 15 mph 174’‐0” 1.72 1.26 1.40

260’‐3” 1.62 1.54 1.94

The controlling members of the as-inspected load rating were found to be two stringers located near 

the pivot pier of the swing span. These stringers are located on the North track of the bridge only 

used by freight trains headed up the Troy Industrial track and Amtrak to turn their Empire Corridor 

train sets for the trip back to New York City. The top flanges of these stringers have corroded to the 

point of almost 100 percent section loss of the flange material. These stringers have been 

highlighted as an immediate repair in the recommendations section of this report. A summary table 

of the controlling member ratings for each loading case is included in the table below. The 

summary table has been prepared to report the controlling member assuming the deficient stringers 

have been repaired. 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -13-

Member Load Ratings 

Controlling As‐Inspected E‐Ratings*

No. of

Tracks Speed Span Normal Rating Maximum Rating

Member E‐Rating Condition Member E Rating Condition

Single 15

mph

2 L1‐M1 &

L7‐M7 E47 As‐Built Floorbeam1 E68 As‐Built

2  ‐  E47 As‐Inspected  ‐  E59 As‐Inspected

Double 15

mph

2 L1‐M1 &

L7‐M7 E29 As‐Built Floorbeam1 E46 As‐Built

2  ‐  E29 As‐Inspected  ‐  E35 As‐Inspected

Double 40

mph

2 L1‐M1 &

L7‐M7 E25 As‐Built Floorbeam1 E42 As‐Built

2  ‐  E25 As‐Inspected  ‐  E32 As‐Inspected

*Controlling Single Track, 15 mph, As-Inspected Rating is E-9 (Normal), E-12 (Maximum) for Stringers 3&4, Span 2 

Controlling As‐Inspected Capacity‐to‐Demand Ratios (per Amtrak EP‐4003)*

No. of Tracks Speed Span Normal C/D Ratios Maximum C/D Ratios

Single 15 mph 1‐5 0.94 1.01

6‐9 1.08 1.05

*Controlling As-Inspected Capacity-to-Demand is 0.29 (Normal), 0.29 (Maximum) for Stringers 3&4, Span 2

Load Rating reports including member and gusset plate rating methodologies, assumptions and 

controlling member ratings summary tables and calculations for each rating load case are provided 

under separate cover. 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -14-

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

The bridge operating machinery, in general, is significantly worn. The swing span is 

currently operable, but reliability is questionable. The end floorbeam machinery is the most severely 

worn mechanical system on the bridge, and has been known to fail during operation causing rail 

traffic delays. A full replacement of the end floorbeam machinery and span drive machinery is 

recommended. A partial replacement and non-destructive testing is recommended for the span 

support machinery. 

Span Drive Machinery

 The span drive machinery is mounted to the swing span, inside the drum girder beneath 

the rail tracks, and consists of two independent drive trains. Each drive train includes an electric 

motor, a solenoid-released, spring-set brake, four stages of open gearing (including one bevel 

gear set), and a rack/pinion gear set with the rack affixed to the pivot pier. See Appendix A for 

machinery figures. 

 Span Drive Motors 

 The motors are in fair condition. Both motors vibrate during operation; however, 

vibrations at the east motor are more severe. The vibrations in the east motor can be distinctly 

seen and heard. A major cause of the vibration is from 3 of the 4 motor mounting bolts being 

loose. The corroded mounting fasteners and single nuts do not provide reliable clamping or 

alignment for this application. The plain steel sheets and washers used to shim the motors 

contribute to motor vibration and corrosion of the steel support (see Photograph M1). 

 Span Drive Brakes

 The brakes are in fair condition. They are solenoid-released brakes which have no delay 

when setting, causing near-instant torque induced to drive machinery upon braking. No manual 

release handle is installed on either brake. Minor to moderate corrosion is present on the entire 

brake housing and all surrounding components including the brake hub, shaft, and support (see 

Photograph M2). The west brake wheel is shifted approx. 3⁄4 inch axially relative to the brake 

linings. Bolt-on keeper plates impeded liner wear measurements and significantly reduce the 

useable thickness of the liners (see Photograph M3). 

 Open Gearing 

 For each drive, two spur gear sets are located inside the drum girder (see Photograph 

M4). The bevel gear set, followed by an additional spur gear set, are located outside the drum 

girder (see Photographs M5 and M6). The first open gear sets (high speed P1/G1), on the east 

and west span drive machinery, are in good condition with only minor wear and acceptable 

contact on the gear faces (see Photograph M7). All other sets of open gearing are in poor 

condition with various deficiencies and signs of severe wear (see Photograph M8). A heavy 

accumulation of old grease is present on the rack teeth in the area of operation (see 

Photograph M9). There are large gaps between some rack segments. One such gap was 

measured to be 1⁄2 inch (see Photograph M10). 

 Shafts

 Most span drive shafts are in fair to good condition. They exhibit minor corrosion and are 

typically covered in grease, dirt, and debris (see Photograph M11). The brake wheel shafts are 

in adequate condition and exhibit moderate corrosion due to a lack of paint or coating system 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -15-

(see Photograph M12). The east main pinion shaft has been replaced, but has not been painted 

or protected by any means. Subsequently, it has developed widespread minor surface corrosion 

(see Photograph M13). 

 Bearings 

 In general, the bearings are in fair-to-poor condition. The bearings that are integral with 

the west span drive motor are not properly lubricated. The grease boxes are stuffed with rags 

and no grease is present (see Photograph M14). A majority of bearings exceed the maximum 

recommended RC9 fit. The west main pinion bearing (B7W) has an abnormally large clearance 

of 0.315 inches (see Photograph M15). The bearings that are integral with the east span drive 

motor (B2E and B3E) vibrate and make a clanging noise during operation. Several cap bolts are 

loose on both west main pinion shaft bearings (B6W and B7W). None of these cap bolts are 

properly secured with double nuts or jam nuts (see Photograph M16). Both the cap and 

mounting bolts on the B4 bearings are moderately to severely corroded (see Photograph M17). 

Span Support Machinery

 The span supporting machinery at the pivot pier consists of the rim-bearing rollers, upper 

and lower tread plates, center bearing, and associated supporting/centering members for these 

components. 

 Rim-Bearing Tread Plates 

 The upper and lower tread plates are in fair condition (see Photograph M18). The 

mounting fasteners appear to be sound. The tread plates exhibit minor corrosion and isolated 

delaminations, which have led to small surface indentations. 

 Rim-Bearing Rollers 

 The rim bearing rollers were largely inaccessible for close inspection; however, contact 

with both upper and lower tread plates at all rollers was noted. All rollers rotate during operation 

indicating consistent bearing during operation. The rollers are held in position by inner and outer 

carrier rings, made of channel shapes, which are connected together with upper and lower 

plates. Approximately 10 of the connecting plates are missing, or have 100% section loss (see 

Photographs M19 and M20). Each roller axle is connected via a radial rod to a central ring at the 

center pin support. Three of the radial rods have failed completely and have been removed from 

service (aside from small remnants at the inner carrier ring and center pivot). Several others 

were noted to have significant deterioration and section loss (see Photograph M21). 

 Center Bearing and Support 

 The center bearing was inaccessible for inspection; however, the lubrication line for the 

bearing is intact. No irregular sounds or indications of binding were witnessed from the span 

support machinery during operation. The center assembly support casting appears to be in 

good condition and the mounting fasteners are sound. Debris has accumulated around the base 

of the support (see Photograph M22). 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -16-

End Floorbeam Machinery 

 The machinery systems at the end floorbeams consist of rail retractors/extenders, 

centering latches, and end wedges. The machinery at each end floorbeam is driven by a 

common motor located near the center of the swing span. Shafts extend from the center of the 

span to each end floorbeam which drive various linkages to operate the machinery components. 

 Rail Retractor/Extender 

 A rider rail is used to carry the rail traffic from the approach span to the swing span rails 

(see Photograph M23). The rider rail system and the linkages which move them are not original 

to the span. The rider rails retract onto the swing span for the span to open, which is 

accomplished by a crank arm mechanism. Many of the crank arms on the rail retractor/extender 

mechanism are severely bent, and there are large gaps at link connections causing extreme 

misalignment (see Photograph M24). Some crank arm keys are held in place with hose clamps 

(see Photograph M25). The railroad personnel were hesitant to operate the swing span during 

the inspection because of the poor reliability of the rail retractor/extender. In the past, this 

mechanism has failed and a maintenance crew was mobilized to manually “hammer” the rails 

back into place in order to reopen the span to rail traffic. 

 End Wedges 

 The end wedges operate, via a crank arm mechanism, within a guide block and bear on 

pedestals on the rest piers. The wedges and their linkages appear original to the bridge and are 

in fair to poor condition. Complete paint failure, moderate corrosion, and excessive lubricant 

buildup is typical of all end wedge components. There are gaps between bearing surfaces at all 

four end wedges while driven and under dead load (see Photograph M26). Under live load the 

ends of the span deflect, or “pump”, creating roughly a 1 inch gap between the wedge and 

base. The southeast end wedge base is not properly secured to the pier top and pumps 

approximately 1⁄4 inch under live load. It was also noted that some clearance remained at the 

end wedges even with live load directly overhead. Inspection of the end wedge bases revealed 

that contact area with the end wedge is poor. Typically less than 50% of the designed bearing 

area shows signs of contact (see Photograph M27). 

 Centering Latches 

 The centering latches are raised by the end floorbeam machinery and drop into the 

receiver pocket automatically when the span closes. The east center latch catch is seized in 

place leaving a gap that is approximately 12 inches wide (see Photograph M28). With a gap this 

large, there are nearly 3 inches of clearance on either side of the latch bar. The east center 

latch bar also does not descend more than halfway into the latch catch pocket. These two 

deficiencies severely limit the effectiveness of the east center latch mechanism. The west 

center latch catch has been removed from the pier top and all that remains are remnants of the 

mounting hardware (see Photograph M29). 

 Driving Machinery 

 The motor at the center of the span appears to be in fair condition and operates 

smoothly (see Photograph M30). The adjacent brake does not operate (wiring was modified so 

brake does not operate). The upper brake shoe rests on the brakewheel during operation, and 

the wearing pad on the lower brake shoe is missing. According to the maintenance personnel, 

chains were installed on various sections of the line shafts that extend to the end floorbeams to 

keep the shaft sections from falling into the river in the event of a coupling failure (see 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -17-

Photograph M31). The line shaft jaw couplings have significant gaps between the jaws and 

most couplings have deformed keyways (see Photograph M32). 

 Each end floorbeam has an open worm gear reduction to drive the machinery. Both the 

worm and the worm wheel have heavy wear and metal flow on the gear teeth. The end floorbeam 

machinery appears to bind/bottom out at the extreme end of each operating direction. At the west 

end floorbeam, the teeth on the worm wheel have heavy tip flow and a wear step near the root. This 

is occurring on teeth that are engaged with the worm when the wedges are fully retracted, indicating 

a “bottoming-out” of the machinery when retracting the wedges. The worm gear and wheel at the 

east end floorbeam have been replaced relatively recently, and also have heavy wear 

characteristics such as destructive pitting and scoring. 

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

 The bridge power distribution system and equipment are in good condition. The swing span 

electrical operating system, consisting of a wedge motor, span drive motors, brakes, and motor 

control components, in general, are at or beyond the end of their service life. The conduit and 

wiring system on the swing span, interconnecting various electrical equipment and components, is 

in poor condition. Long term reliability is considered a serious issue due to the obsolescence of the 

major components of the swing span operating electrical system, and current condition of the 

conduit and wiring system. 

Bridge Power Distribution System

 The electric power service to the bridge is fed from three 37.5 kVA, pole-mounted 

transformers (see Photograph E1), upgraded from previous 25 kVA transformers. A new generator 

was installed in a fenced-in area on the northwest side of the bridge (see Photograph E2). 

Electrical Equipment Shed

 This shed is located on the track side on the west shore end of the bridge. Power 

distribution equipment, inside and outside the shed, consist of disconnect switches, transformers, a 

voltage rectifier system, a transfer switch, a panelboard, and a power protective device, which are 

in good condition (see Photograph E3). The interior surface of the transfer switch cabinet was 

blackened by smoke (see Photograph E4), probably from a previous faulty circuit. The inside and 

outside walls of the shed are rusted (see Photograph E5). However, this shed still provides 

protection to interior equipment from weather. 

 The two voltage rectifier systems, one installed in the electrical equipment shed and the 

other on the swing span, are in good condition. Disconnect switches for the power distribution 

system are in good condition as well. 

Aerial Cables 

 Electrical cables to the swing span and across the channel are aerial cables supported by 

messenger cables strung between the two cable support towers, one at each end of the swing 

span. The aerial cables to the swing span, including the bridge power aerial cables, drop at the 

center of the messenger cable span, directly over the center and pivot point of the swing span (see 

Photograph E6). These aerial cables simply twist and untwist as the swing span opens and closes. 

Once on the swing span (see Photograph E7), the bridge power cables run down to the control 

house in conduit via a weather head, while three other cables terminate in a cabinet on the south 

walkway of the control house. 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -18-

 One end of the messenger cable that supports the bridge power aerial cables, dropped from 

the messenger cable span to the swing span, is not attached to the swing span structure (see 

Photograph E8). 

Transformers

 The 25 kVA transformer inside the electrical equipment shed has debris on the windings. 

The front panel of this transformer has 4 missing retaining screws out of 7 screws (see Photographs 

E9 and E10). 

 The internal components of the outdoor transformer beside the electrical equipment shed 

are covered with dust (see Photograph E11). It appears that this transformer is connected for 

service. 

Swing Span Conduits and Wiring

 The conduits on the swing span and on the piers are rusted and generally in poor condition 

(see Photograph E12). The conduit to the span-mounted navigation lights on top of the swing span 

is rusted and not adequately supported to the structure (see Photograph E13). 

 The wireways for wiring interconnections between cabinets on the control house walkway 

and the equipment at track side and above the center pier are rusted through at several places, 

exposing the internal conductors to weather (see Photograph E14). 

Span Operating Motors and Brakes

The motors operating the machinery of the swing span are comprised of two span drive 

motors, a motor for the wedges and centering latches, and a direct-current (DC) brake rated 550 

lb/ft torque for each DC motor. The swing span is operational in one direction, clockwise opening 

and counter-clockwise closing directions. 

Span Drive Motor 

 The span drive motors are direct-current (DC) motors, by General Electric, which have no 

nameplate and are obsolete (see Photograph E15). Although the motors are currently operational, 

replacement parts are likely to be unavailable, requiring custom manufacturing of these parts when 

needed. An insulation test was performed on each drive motor with a megger set at 1000 volts DC. 

The megger results are within acceptable values, and are the following: 

 West Span Drive Motor = 8.4M ohm 

 East Span Drive Motor = 5.6M ohm 

 Weather Relative Humidity = 72% 

 Weather Temperature = 44F 

Wedge Motor 

 Similar to the span drive motors, the wedge motor is a direct-current (DC) motor, by General 

Electric, which has no nameplate and is obsolete (see Photograph E16). Its obsolescence will also 

likely require custom manufacturing of any needed replacement parts at the time such repair may 

be required. The commutator of the motor is covered with carbon dust from the brushes (see 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -19-

Photograph E17). Insulation test was performed on the wedge motor with a megger set at 1000 

volts DC. The megger results are within acceptable values, and are the following: 

 Wedge Motor = 1M ohm 

 Weather Relative Humidity = 72% 

 Weather Temperature = 44F 

 A full cycle bridge operation was done for the inspection. Current readings were taken of the 

wedge motor during pulling wedges, of the east span drive motor during span opening, and of the 

west span drive motor during span closing. The motor current readings can be seen below in Chart 

1. As shown in the motor current chart, the swing span was jogged in several times during closing 

to center the span before driving the wedges. It did not demonstrate a smooth closing of the swing 

span from the nearly closed to fully closed positions. 

 Vibration of the east span drive motor and rattling of a bearing was observed during span 

operation. There is sign of shaft displacement, which is discussed in the “Mechanical Systems” 

section of this report. 

Brakes

 All brakes are properly functional, and in fair condition. 

Chart 1
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -20-

Swing Span Control System

The swing span control system includes the control console, motor speed control resistors, 

motor control cabinets, limit switches, control relays, knife switches, and miscellaneous control 

components. In general, the bridge control system is antiquated, and in need of replacement. 

Control Console

 The control console is located in the control house, and is equipped with a selector switch, 

which allows operations of the swing span to be selected between 1 of the 3 span operating modes. 

These modes consist of “Remote Automatic Control”, “Local Automatic Control”, and “Manual 

Control”. There are pilot lights indicating equipment and span positions, push button switches, and 

motor control switches for span and wedge control. Though the switch selection for “Remote 

Automatic Control” is provided, the actual capability of this control feature cannot be confirmed. The 

control console is in fair condition. 

Motor Control Cabinets

 The motor control cabinets include the span drive motor control cabinet and the 

resistor/wedge motor control cabinet, located on the walkway of the control house (see 

Photographs E18 and E19). Each cabinet encloses control relays, contactors, knife switches, fuses, 

and terminal blocks (see Photograph E20) to provide the sequencing of the span operations and 

the control of the motor(s) which it serves. The motor speed control resistors are located in the 

resistor/wedge motor control cabinet. All wire connectors in each cabinet are corroded (see 

Photograph E21). The control relays and power contactors in each cabinet, while currently 

functioning, are antiquated and in need of replacement. Each cabinet has surface rust on the 

outside and inside panels (see Photograph E22). 

 Drive Motor Resistors

 The motor accelerating resistors are used to control the power delivered to the motor, 

thereby allowing its speed to be altered. The resistors have surface rust and are in fair condition 

(see Photograph E23). 

Limit Switches 

 Limit switches consist of a 5-circuit, chain drive, rotating cam limit switch for the span 

position control (see Photograph E24), a lever arm limit switch for span fully closed position (see 

Photograph E25), a chain drive limit switch assembly for the wedge motor (see Photograph E26), 

and lever arm limit switches (see Photograph E27)for the centering latches. All limit switches are in 

fair condition. 

The entire swing span control system is antiquated, both in terms of individual components and in 

terms of the control methodology. The remaining service life and reliability of the system are 

questionable. 

Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -22-

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 The Livingston Ave Railroad bridge is in overall fair condition with isolated components of 

the bridge in poor condition. Items of primary concern include: the areas of undermining noted at 

the noses of Pier 1 (Pier “R”) and Pier 2N (Pier “P”); the seriously deteriorated, collapsed and 

leaning fender walls along Pier 2; the excessive wear found at the wedge plate bearings of the 

swing span; the numerous missing and severely corroded girder span anchor bolts; and the 

widespread deterioration of the pedestrian walkway. 

 The following is a list of the recommended maintenance and repair items resulting from the 

findings of the 2015 In-depth Inspection until which time the bridge is replaced: 

SUBSTRUCTURE

 Maintenance and Repair

1. Remove the dirt and debris on top of the bridge seat and around the truss and girder 

bearings at east and west abutments (Abutment “S” and Abutment “G”). 

 

2. Repair/seal the 1-1/2” wide crack found at the upper right corner of the south wingwall of 

the west abutment. 

3. Replace the missing pointing between the masonry stones of the piers with priority given 

to the stone courses in the tidal zone of the piers. 

 

4. Secure the shifted stones and fill voids at Piers 1, 2, 6 and 7. 

5. Remove the collapsed and leaning sections of the timber walls of the fender system. 

Once these sections of wall are removed, consider having a special diving inspection 

performed to access the areas non-accessible during the 2015 Underwater Inspection. 

Consideration should also be given to a full rehabilitation/replacement of the fender 

system. 

 

6. Install grout beneath the bearing bolster for the north girder at Pier 6 to provide full 

bearing area. 

 

7. Repair the spalled areas of the wash concrete around the perimeter of Piers 3 (Pier “N”), 

Pier 4 (Pier “M”) and Pier 5 (Pier ”L”). 

 

8. Consider a follow-up underwater inspection in 24 months to monitor the areas noted 

with scour and/or undermining. 

 Routine Maintenance

1. Periodically monitor the working condition of the navigation lights at the pier tops and 

replace/repair as needed. 

2. Remove any vegetation growth occurring at the top of the piers and between the 

masonry stones of the piers. 

3. Remove the vegetation growth on top of the stone fill between Pier 2N, Pier 2 and Pier 

2S. 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -23-

 Monitor

1. The displaced stones at the noses of Pier 1 (Pier “R”), Pier 2N (Pier “P”), Pier 6 (Pier 

“K”) and Pier 7 (Pier “J”) and consider establishing a “Plan of Action” for repairs if further 

deterioration/settlement is found during future inspections. 

2. The deteriorating masonry stones at the pier tops for any areas of spalling in and around 

the truss and girder bearings. 

3. The masonry stone beneath the north girder bearing at Pier 6 (Pier “K”) for any signs of 

spalling, settlement or distress. 

4. The exposed timber pile cap at Pier 6 (Pier “K”) for further exposure and signs of further 

deterioration. 

 

5. The full height cracks in the stemwall of the east abutment (Abutment “G”) for signs of 

widening and/or spalling. 

 

6. The girder spans bearings that appear to have shifted for any signs of further lateral 

movement. 

 

7. Consider an underwater inspection at Pier 1 after all high flow or major storm events 

until scour/undermining conditions are remediated. 

SUPERSTRUCTURE

Bearings 

 Maintenance and Repair

1. Repair/rehab the wedge plate bearings at Pier 1 (Pier “R”) and Pier 3 (Pier “N”) to 

address the areas of excessive wear and areas noted to pump under live loads. (For 

more specific repair recommendations refer to “Mechanical Systems” section of the 

repair recommendations). 

2. Replace/repair the numerous broken and severely corroded through girder anchor bolts 

listed on Pages 7 and 8 of this report. 

 

3. Repair the broken/missing anchor bolts for the stringer expansion bearings listed in 

Table 1 of Appendix B. 

 Routine Maintenance

1. Clean and lubricate the wedge plate bearings on a semi-annual basis. Be sure to 

remove all old contaminated lubricant before applying new lubricant. 

 Monitor

1. The frozen roller bearings of the through deck trusses for any signs of movement or 

distress. 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -24-

2. The contact between the truss bearings of Span 5 and the girder span bearings of Span 

6 for any signs of distress. Monitor the bearings at adjacent piers for signs of distress 

due to thermal stresses that may be imparted into the superstructure. 

 Through Truss Spans

 Maintenance and Repair

1. Clean and paint the lower portions of the bottom chord gusset plates noted with section 

loss in Table 1 of Appendix B. In the areas noted with section loss, replace any rivets 

that have over 75% section loss on the rivet heads. 

2. Repair/replace the severely deteriorated/cracked lacing bars and batten plates noted in 

Table 1 of Appendix B. 

 Routine Maintenance

1. Remove dirt and debris from the horizontal surfaces in and around the bottom chord 

joints as well as along the bottom flange angles of the bottom chords. 

 Monitor

1. The anchor bolts for the for aerial cable towers attached to the top chord of the trusses 

for any signs of distress and further deterioration. 

Through Truss Swing Spans

 Maintenance and Repair

1. Clean and paint the lower portions of the bottom chord gusset plates noted with section 

loss in Table 1 of Appendix B. In the areas noted with section loss, replace any rivets 

that have over 75% section loss on the rivet heads. 

 

2. Repair/replace the severely deteriorated/cracked lacing bars and batten plates noted in 

Table 1 of Appendix B. 

 

3. Refer to the “Mechanical Systems” of the repair recommendations for specific 

maintenance and repair recommendations for the machinery of the swing spans. 

 Routine Maintenance

1. Remove dirt, debris and corrosion product from the top surfaces of the rim girder and 

support metalwork. Consider cleaning and spot painting areas with moderate to 

significant section losses. 

 Monitor

1. The components of the track extender/retractor for misalignments and distress on a 

regular basis until the wedge plate bearings are rehabilitated to address the noted 

excessive movements. 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -25-

Through Girder Spans

 Maintenance and Repair

1. Clean and paint the areas noted with moderate section losses in Table 1 of Appendix B. 

Routine Maintenance 

1. Remove dirt and debris from the horizontal surfaces of the bottom flanges as well as in 

and around the girder bearings. 

 Monitor

1. The areas noted in Table 1 of Appendix B with bent or distorted stiffeners and knee 

brace angles for any signs of distress. 

Lateral Bracing

 Maintenance and Repair

1. Replace/repair the numerous severely corroded lower lateral connection plates and 

bracing angles listed in Table 1 of Appendix B. Consider a programmed replacement of 

all the lateral bracing connection plates and angles. 

 

2. Repair the upper lateral bracing angles noted with corrosion holes in Table 1 of 

Appendix B. 

 

3. Remove debris from the upturned angles of the portal bracing and consider installing 

drain holes. 

 Routine Maintenance

1. Remove debris from the horizontal surfaces of the lower lateral bracing plates on a 

yearly basis. 

Floor System

 Immediate Repair

1. Repair/replace Stringers 3 & 4 between Panel Points L7 and L8 of the Through Truss 

Swing Span. The top flanges of these two stringers have almost 100% section loss 

along a substantial portion of their length and control the load rating of the structure at 

Cooper Normal E-9 for Single Track 15 mph operation. The repair of these two 

stringers is estimated to cost approximately $50,000 plus associated track outage and 

flagging costs. 

 Maintenance and Repair

1. Replace the numerous rivets with 50-100% section loss on the top flanges of the 

floorbeams that are listed in Table 3 of Appendix B. Consider cleaning and painting the 

top flanges of the floorbeams when replacing corroded rivets. 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -26-

2. Repair/replace the top flange angles of the stringers with greater than 50% section loss. 

Consider a programmed replacement of the top flange angles with priority given to the 

locations noted with the greatest amount of deterioration. 

 Monitor

1. The areas with moderate to significant section losses on the top and bottom flange 

angles of the stringers as well as the top and bottom cover plates of the floorbeams for 

any signs of distress and/or cracking. 

Paint Protection

 Maintenance and Repair

1. Spot clean and paint the areas noted with the greatest amount of deterioration to slow 

the rate of deterioration. 

Deck

 Routine Maintenance

1. Inspect the timber ties on a regular basis, and replace ties as necessary. 

 Monitor

1. The track splice connections for excessive wear and broken and loose connection bolts. 

Replace splice plates and connection bolts as needed. 

 

Maintenance Walkway, Access Platforms and Railings

 Maintenance and Repair

1. Issue a contract to rehabilitate or replace the entire maintenance walkway and railings 

to address the widespread deterioration. If a contract is not issued to address this 

deterioration, consideration should be given to removing the maintenance walkway to 

insure that it is not utilized to access the structure. 

 

2. Remove the section of corroded conduit on top of the cantilever brackets that could 

become potential falling hazards, with priority given to those noted over Quay Street. 

3. Replace the numerous rotten timber planks on the access platforms listed in Table 2 of 

Appendix B. Consider replacing the timber planks with metal or fiberglass grating. 

 

 Routine Maintenance

1. Replace any rotten timber planks as needed. 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -27-

 Monitor

2. Until repairs are made, periodically inspect the pedestrian walkway for potential falling 

hazards with special attention given to the areas located above Quay Street and the 

navigation channel of the river. 

MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

 Maintenance and Repair

1. Install an entire new span drive assembly consisting of enclosed gearing, thrustorreleased brakes, new main pinions and racks, shafts and bearings, flexible gear 

couplings, and all associated mounting brackets and supporting structural steel. 

2. Install an auxiliary drive system consisting of a gearmotor with clutch or cut-out coupling 

for back-up operation. 

3. Replace the inner and outer carrier rings and radial rods. 

4. Clean and inspect the rollers and tread plates for cracks using non-destructive methods. 

5. Clean and inspect the center assembly support casting as well as the integrity of the 

pier top. 

6. Evaluate the center bearing itself and the radial rod connector assembly, and replace if 

necessary. 

7. Remove and replace all of the end wedge machinery with modern equipment. Each end 

floorbeam should have its own drive machinery eliminating the need for long line shafts 

required in the current configuration. The three functions currently controlled by the end 

floorbeam drive machinery (rail retracting/extending, end wedge actuation, and lifting the 

center latch) could be controlled with independent drive systems to reduce complex 

linkages. A hydraulic drive system should be considered as a feasible option for 

replacement. 

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

 Short-term Maintenance and Repair

1. Repair/reattach the messenger cable supporting the power cables. It should be attached 

to the swing span structure to prevent the power cables from swaying under wind. 

2. Properly secure the face of the transformer located inside the electrical shed so it can 

maintain proper protection of the contents inside. 

3. Replace all rusted conduits, wireways, and junction boxes with new conduits and 

corrosion-resistant boxes. 

 

4. The wedge motor commutator should be cleaned from carbon dust built-up to prevent 

bridging between commutator bars. 

 
Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge -28-

5. The internal windings and components of the 25 kVA transformer inside the shed should 

be cleaned from debris. 

6. The west span navigation light should be provided with a new top cover. 

 

7. All pipe-mounted span navigation lights should be provided with adequate pipe base 

anchors to secure the lights in place. 

 

8. The missing bulb in the north pier marking navigation light on Pier 1 should be provided. 

 Long-term Maintenance and Repair

1. For long term operational reliability, the electrical control system for the swing span 

should be replaced in total, including: 

- Both span drive motors with their accelerating resistor speed controls. 

- The wedge motor with all associated motor controllers. 

- The operational sequencing control system. 

- The limit switches. 

- The control console. 

- All new electrical wiring and conduits on the swing span. 

2. Consideration should be given to utilizing AC squirrel cage induction motors with 

associated AC motor speed controller of the flux vector control type for the replacement 

of the current DC motors and resistor speed control. Such systems are the current 

standard practice on all types of movable bridges, including swing bridges. 

3. Consideration should also be given to utilizing a micro-processor-based, programmable 

logic controller (PLC) to replace the current operational sequencing control system. The 

PLC system will facilitate the interface between control equipment and devices for the 

remote automatic control and local automatic control of the bridge, as the selection of 

such controls is currently allowed by an existing selector switch on the control console. 

Routine Maintenance

1. Inspect the working condition of the navigation lights on a periodic basis, and replace 

and/or repair the lighting as necessary. 

LOCATION MAP

MODJESKI AND MASTERS, INC.

Figure 1 – Span Drive Machinery Elevation View
MODJESKI AND MASTERS, INC.

Figure 2 - Span Drive Machinery Plan View
MODJESKI AND MASTERS, INC.

Figure 3 – End Floorbeam Machinery Plan View
MODJESKI AND MASTERS, INC.

Figure 4 – End Floorbeam Machinery Plan View 
MODJESKI AND MASTERS, INC.

Figure 5 – End Wedge Machinery Plan View 
APPENDIX B 

LOAD RATING REPORTS 

(Load Rating Calculations not included) 
APPENDIX C 

Inspection Photographs 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 1 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S1: 

Elevation view of the Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge looking

northeast. 

Photograph S2: 

Span 3, looking north. View of the technical access methods used to 

access the upper portions of the through truss spans. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 2 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S3: 

Span 3, looking north. View of the safety handlines utilized to

access the lower portions of the through trusses. 

Photograph S4: 

Span 3, looking east. View of the 60’ bucket boat utilized to access 

the floor system and deck underside. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 3 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S5: 

Span 7, looking northwest. View of the Tracker T-44 utilized to

access the piers, floor system and superstructure. 

Photograph S6: 

West Abutment (Abutment “S”). General view of the abutment 

looking northwest. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 4 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S7: 

West Abutment (Abutment “S”), looking south. View of the 

significant amount of dirt, debris and ballast on the bridge seat. 

Photograph S8: 

West Abutment (Abutment “S”), south wingwall. View of the 1-1/2” 

wide crack at the upper portion of the wall at the east end of the 

wingwall. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 5 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S9: 

Pier 1 (Pier “R”), west face of pier top. View of the cracked, spalled 

and deteriorating masonry blocks. 

Photograph S10: 

Pier 1 (Pier “R”), north nose of pier. View of the displaced stones 

with gaps up to 6” wide.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 6 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S11: 

Pier 1 (Pier “R”), north end of the pier top. View of the missing light 

in the hard-wired navigation light (yellow arrow) and missing solar 

navigation light (red arrow). 

Photograph S12: 

Pier 2N (Pier “P”), north nose of pier. View of the displaced masonry 

stones with gaps up to 2” wide. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 7 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S13: 

Pier 2N (Pier “P”). View of the collapsed section of the fender wall 

on the east side of the pier. 

Photograph S14: 

Fender Wall at Pier 2S looking north. View of the fender wall leaning 

in towards the navigation channel of the river. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 8 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S15: 

Fender Wall north of Pier 2N (Pier “P”). View of severely 

deteriorated timber piles and planks. 

Photograph S16: 

Timber bulkhead between Pier 2 (Pier “O”) and Pier 2N (Pier “P”). 

View of the significant vegetation growth as well as the 4’ diameter 

area with missing stone fill (arrow). 

 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 9 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S17: 

Pier 3 (Pier “N”), looking northeast. General view of the pier with 

large spalling around the wash concrete of the pier base.

Photograph S18: 

Pier 6 (Pier “K”), north end of pier top. View of the spalled and 

slightly shifted masonry stone beneath the north girder of Span 6. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 10 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S19: 

Pier 6, north girder of Span 6. Close-up view of the undermined

area of the girder bearing bolster. 

Photograph S20: 

Pier 6 (Pier “K”), north nose near waterline. View of the displaced 

masonry stone as well as the exposed timber pile cap. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 11 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S21: 

Pier 6 (Pier “K”), east face. View of the missing pointing with

several displaced masonry stone throughout the lower courses of

the pier. 

Photograph S22: 

Pier 7 (Pier “J”). View of the typical full-width horizontal cracking 

occurring at the masonry stones of the pier top. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 12 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S23: 

Pier 7 (Pier “J”), north nose. View of the displaced masonry stone 

with gaps up to 4” wide. 

Photograph S24: 

Pier 8 (Pier “I”), west face. View of the widespread map cracking 

efflorescence, rust staining and spalling throughout the upper 

concrete portion of the pier. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 13 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S25: 

Pier 8 (Pier “I”), south nose of the pier. View of the 1/4” wide 

vertical crack that extends through several of the masonry stones. 

Photograph S26: 

East Abutment (Abutment “G”). General view of the abutment looking 

northeast. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 14 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S27: 

East Abutment (abutment “G”), south wingwall. View of the large

areas of spalling, map cracking and scaling on the wingwall and

backwall. 

Photograph S28: 

Pier 4, north truss expansion bearings. View of the typical condition 

of the roller bearings with no signs of movement noted. Note that the 

bearings are in the fully expanded position.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 15 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S29: 

Span 2A, north truss bearing at Pier 1. View of the 1/8” to 3/16” 

gap between the wedge plate and the upper bearing casting. 

Photograph S30: 

Span 2B, south truss bearing at Pier 3. General view of the wedge 

plate bearing with gaps below the anchor bolts due to the lower

bearing casting pumping under live loads.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 16 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S31: 

Span 2B, north truss bearing at Pier 3. View of the broken anchor 

bolt at the northwest corner of the lower bearing casting. 

Photograph S32: 

Pier 7, north girder bearings. View showing broken/missing girder 

anchor bolts at the outboard side of the Span 6 and Span 7 girders.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 17 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S33: 

Pier 8, north girder bearings. View of the broken/missing and 

severely corroded girder anchor bolts at the outboard side of the 

Span 7 and Span 8 girders. 

Photograph S34: 

Pier 8, north girder bearing of Span 7. View of the broken anchor 

bolts with wear at the west slotted hole indicating lateral movement 

(arrow).
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 18 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S35: 

Pier 9, south girder bearing of Span 8. View of the broken and 

severely corroded anchor bolts with wear at the east slotted hole 

indicating lateral movement (arrow). 

Photograph S36: 

Pier 6, north truss and girder bearings. View of the contact between 

the girder and bottom chord of the truss at an ambient air 

temperature of 45°F.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 19 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S37: 

Span 3, Panel Point 0’, Stringer 1. View of the missing anchor bolt 

at the stringer expansion bearing. 

Photograph S38: 

Span 4, Panel Point L2’N. View of the typical corrosion found at the 

lower portions of the gusset plates within the bottom chord joints.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 20 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S39: 

Span 3, Panel Point L4S. View of the typical section loss along the 

lower portion of the gusset plate as well as the significant corrosion 

of the lower lateral connection plate. 

Photograph S40: 

Span 4, Panel Point LS. View of the corrosion and section loss on 

the bottom flange angle of the floorbeam and bottom chord as well 

as the top surface of the lower lateral connection plate.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 21 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S41: 

Span 4, Panel Point L3’N. View of the cracked lacing bar at the

west side of the joint due to severe crevice corrosion. 

Photograph S42: 

Span 1, Panel Point U2’S, electrical line tower bearing at top chord. 

View of the typical section loss on the anchor rods between the

stiffeners of the tower bearing.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 22 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S43: 

Span 2A/2B, Panel Point L8 to L8’, metalwork above rotational 

bearing. View of the typical corrosion and section loss on the lower 

portions with a severely corroded/missing radial spoke. 

Photograph S44: 

Span 2A/2B, Panel Point L8 to L8’, rotational bearing. View of the 

two of the severely corroded/broken radial spokes (arrows).
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 23 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S45: 

Span 2A/2B, Panel Point L8N to L8’N, metalwork below the 

operator’s room. View of the severely corroded angles, lacing bars 

and batten plates. 

Photograph S46: 

Span 2B, Panel Point L8’N, west side of inboard gusset plate. View 

of the significant section loss to the plate just above the connection 

of the bracing angle.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 24 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S47: 

Span 2B, Panel Point L8’N, west side of outboard gusset plate. 

View of the significant section loss to the plate just above the top 

flange of the bottom chord. 

Photograph S48: 

Span 2A/2B, Panel Point L8N to L8’N, bottom chord. View of the 

significant section loss to the onboard bottom flange angle and the 

lower lateral bracing angles and connection plate.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 25 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S49: 

Spans 7 through 9, looking east. General view of the through girder 

spans. 

Photograph S50: 

Span 6, south girder. View of the 1/8” pitting and section loss along 

the outboard bottom flange angle.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 26 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S51: 

Span 1, Panel Point L3S, looking up. View of the severely corroded 

lower lateral connection plate. 

Photograph S52: 

Span 2, Panel Point L2S looking northeast. View of the severe 

crevice up to 2” spread between the lower bracing angles.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 27 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S53: 

Span 1, Panel Point L2S to L3S at Stringer 4. View of the severely 

corroded lower lateral bracing angles near the bottom flange of the 

stringer. 

Photograph S54: 

Span 3, Panel Point U3CL, looking northeast. View of the corrosion 

holes in the bottom flange angle of the upper lateral bracing member 

U2N-U4N.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 28 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S55: 

Span 9, north girder at East Abutment (Abutment “G”). View of the 

severely deteriorated lower lateral bracing connection plate. 

Photograph S56: 

Span 9, Floorbeam 0 to 1, Stringer 3 to 4. View of the numerous

disconnected rivets due to severe crevice corrosion and section loss 

of the bracing angles and cover plates.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 29 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S57: 

Span 7, Floorbeam 3. View of the typical section loss to the rivet 

heads and cover plates at the top flanges of the floorbeams. 

Photograph S58: 

Span 1, Floorbeam at Panel Point 0, looking south. View of the 

significant section loss to the bottom flange angle and bottom cover 

plate. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 30 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S59: 

Span 2A, Stringer 4 between Panel Points L7 and L8. View of the

severe section loss to the outstanding legs of the top flange 

angles. 

Photograph S60: 

Span 8, Stringer 4 between Floorbeams 1 and 2. View of the 50-75% 

section loss of the outstanding legs of the top flange angles with 

numerous corrosion holes. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 31 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S61: 

Span 6, pedestrian walkway, looking northwest. View of the large 

section of missing railing (yellow arrow) with several missing timber 

planks (red arrows). 

Photograph S62: 

Span 9, south girder. View of the severely corroded support 

metalwork of the pedestrian walkway with missing timber planking 

throughout. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 32 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph S63: 

Span 2B, pedestrian walkway, looking west. View of the severely

corroded/disconnected railing post at the outboard railing. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 33 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M1: 

West span drive motor with corroded fasteners and shims that 

have worked out of place (circles). 

Photograph M2: 

West span drive brake. Widespread minor to moderate corrosion is 

present on the brake housing, brake wheel hub, shaft, and support. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 34 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M3: 

West span drive brake wheel has shifted axially and displays 

corrosion on the working surface of the wheel. Bolt-on keeper 

plates reduce useable thickness of liner (arrows). 

Photograph M4: 

West span drive machinery inside the drum girder. Machinery 

includes motor, brake, and the first two sets of open gearing. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 35 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M5: 

Span drive, bevel gear set (3rd reduction), and the 4th reduction 

spur gear set are located outside the drum girder. 

Photograph M6: 

The final drive shaft connects gear, G4, to the main pinion. The 

main pinion mates with the rack, which is bolted to the pivot pier. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 36 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M7: 

General view of gear G1 of the first gear set (P1/G1). These gears 

are in good condition with only minor corrosion and minimal signs 

of wear. 

Photograph M8: 

General view of G2 gear tooth. Most gears are in poor condition

similar to this one. This tooth has severe indentations, plastic tip 

flow, a wear step, minor corrosion, and severe scuffing in the 

dedendum. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 37 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M9: 

The rack teeth have accumulated an excessive amount of old 

tacky grease. Large chunks of grease were removed to inspect the 

rack teeth (circles). 

Photograph M10: 

There are large gaps between some rack segments. The inset 

photo above shows a gap of approx. 1⁄2”. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 38 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M11: 

Most span drive shafts are in fair to good condition. There is a 

layer of grease and dirt on most shafts, like the one above.

Photograph M12: 

The brake wheel shafts are in adequate condition. They exhibit 

moderate corrosion due to a lack of paint or coating system. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 39 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M13: 

The east main pinion shaft has been replaced, but has not been 

painted or protected. Subsequently, it has developed widespread

minor surface corrosion.

Photograph M14: 

The bearings integral to the west span drive motor are not properly 

lubricated. The grease boxes are stuffed with rags (arrow) and no 

grease is present. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 40 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M15: 

The west main pinion bearing (B7W) has an abnormally large 

clearance (gap between arrows). 

Photograph M16: 

Several of the cap bolts are loose on both west main pinion shaft 

bearings (B6W and B7W). None of the cap bolts are properly 

secured with double nuts or jam nuts.
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 41 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M17: 

Both the cap and mounting bolts on the B4 bearings are 

moderately to severely corroded. 

Photograph M18: 

The tread plates exhibit minor corrosion and isolated 

delaminations, which have led to small surface indentations. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 42 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M19: 

General view of the rim bearing assembly. Approximately 10 of the 

carrier ring connecting plates are missing, or have 100% section 

loss (circle). 

Photograph M20: 

Close-up view of deteriorated carrier ring connecting plate. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 43 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M21: 

Two of the Three failed radial rods, which have been removed from 

service, aside from small remnants at the inner carrier ring and 

center pivot (circles). 

Photograph M22: 

The support casting for center bearing and radial rod connector

assembly appears to be in good condition and the mounting 

fasteners are sound. Debris has accumulated around the base of 

the support. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 44 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M23: 

General view of the sliding rail retractor/extender. 

Photograph M24: 

The crank arms on the rail retractor/extender mechanism are 

severely bent (line shows unbent orientation), and there are large 

gaps at link connections causing extreme misalignment (circle). 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 45 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M25: 

Some crank arm keys are unsuccessfully held in place with hose 

clamps. This key has shifted axially making it ineffective. 

Photograph M26: 

General view of the gap between the end wedge and upper end 

wedge guide. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 46 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M27: 

Only small sections of the end wedge bases show signs of contact 

(red rectangle). All end wedge mounting hardware is severely 

corroded and deficient, or has altogether failed (green arrows). 

Photograph M28: 

The east center latch catch is seized in place leaving a gap that is 

approximately 12 inches wide. With a gap this large there are 

nearly 3 inches of clearance on either side of the latch bar. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 47 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M29: 

The west center latch catch has been removed from the pier top 

and all that remains are remnants of the mounting hardware. 

Photograph M30: 

General view the end floorbeam drive machinery located near the

center of the swing span. 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 48 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph M31: 

Chains were installed on various sections of the line shafts that 

extend to the end floorbeams to keep the shaft sections from falling 

into the river in the event of a coupling failure. 

Photograph M32: 

Typical view of an end wedge jaw coupling with gaps in the jaws

(blue oval) and a deformed keyway (red circle). 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 49 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E1: 

Three 37.5 kVA, pole-mounted transformers 

Photograph E2: 

Backup generator 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 50 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E3: 

Electrical equipment shed - inside 

Photograph E4: 

Blackened interior surface of the transfer switch cabinet 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 51 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E5: 

Electrical equipment shed - outside 

Photograph E6: 

Aerial cables to the swing span 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 52 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E7: 

Bridge power cables on the swing span 

Photograph E8: 

Detached messenger cable from the swing span structure 

End of detached 

messenger cable 

Power 

cables into 

weather 

head 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 53 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E9: 

Debris on the windings of the 25kVA transformer inside the 

electrical equipment shed 

Photograph E10: 

Missing retaining screws on the 25kVA transformer inside the 

electrical equipment shed 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 54 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E11: 

Dust covered, outdoor transformer beside the electrical 

equipment shed 

Photograph E12: 

Conduit in poor condition 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 55 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E13: 

Unsupported and rusted navigation light conduit 

Photograph E14: 

Rusted/deteriorated wireway 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 56 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E15: 

Obsolete drive motors without nameplates 

Photograph E16: 

Obsolete wedge motor without a nameplate 

 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 57 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E17: 

Wedge motor commutator covered in carbon dust 

Photograph E18: 

Span drive motor control cabinet 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 58 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E19: 

Resistor/wedge motor control cabinet 

Photograph E20: 

Motor control equipment inside enclosures 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 59 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E21: 

Corroded wire connectors 

Photograph E22: 

Interior panel surface rust 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 60 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E23: 

Drive motor resistors 

Photograph E24: 

Span position control cam limit switch 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 61 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E25: 

 

Span fully closed lever arm limit switch 

Photograph E26: 

Wedge motor chain drive limit switch assembly 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 62 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E27: 

Centering latch lever arm limit switch 

Photograph E28: 

Navigation light with missing top cover 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 63 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E29: 

Unsecure navigation light 

Photograph E30: 

Unsecure center span navigation light mounted to a deteriorating 

wooden plank 

Missing bolt 

Loose bolt 
Bridge Name: Livingston Ave. Bridge Location: Albany, NY 

Bridge Number: 1935.49 Feature Crossed: Hudson River 

Page 64 Date: February, 2016 

Photograph E31: 

Missing pier navigation light bulb 


 

 Span 9, As-Inspected ......................................................... 768 

 Single Track, 15mph E-Rating Calculations .......................... 776 

 Spans 1 & 3, As-Built ......................................................... 777 

 Span 1, As-Inspected ......................................................... 792 

 Span 2, As-Built .................................................................. 807 

 Span 2, As-Inspected ......................................................... 920 

 Span 3, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1033 

 Spans 4 & 5, As-Built ....................................................... 1048 

 Span 4, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1063 

 Span 5, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1078 

 Span 6, As-Built ................................................................ 1093 

 Span 6, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1101 

 Spans 7 - 9, As-Built ......................................................... 1109 

 Span 7, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1124 

 Span 8, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1139 

 Span 9, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1154 

 Single Track, 15mph Amtrak Rating Calculations ............... 1169 

 Span 1, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1170 

 Span 2, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1192 

 Span 3, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1361 

 Span 4, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1383 

 Span 5, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1405 

 Span 6, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1427 

 Span 7, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1442 

 Span 8, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1471 

 Span 9, As-Inspected ....................................................... 1500 

 

Appendices

Appendix A – Sample Calculations 

Appendix B – Live Load Vehicle Diagrams 

Appendix C – Section Losses 

 

The Livingston Avenue Railroad Bridge has two sets of tracks and carries bi-directional rail traffic over the

Hudson River, connecting Albany and Rensselaer, New York. The substructure consists of a masonry

west abutment, 9 masonry piers, and a concrete east abutment. The superstructure of the bridge

consists of four thru-girder spans ranging from 68’ to 74’-10”, four stationary thru-truss spans (175’), and

a thru-truss swing span (260’), for a total of approximately 1,250’ in length. The bridge deck components

consist of wood ties with two sets of rail tracks, a steel grate maintenance walkway and a cantilevered

timber decked maintenance sidewalk. The rails are supported by a built-up stringer-floorbeam system, 

which transfers loads through to the truss and girder members.

Trusses, girders and bearings are labeled left or right, with left being the north side. Reference Points

are numbered west-to-east, beginning with Reference Point 0 located at the beginning of each truss

of each span. All the stringers are numbered north-to- south (upstream-to-downstream). The

floorbeams are numbered by their respective panel point number in the through truss spans and are

labeled similarly from 0 (begin) to 0’ (end) in the through girder spans. A General Plan and Elevation sketch 

has been provided within this report for reference.

This report documents the as-built and as-inspected condition ratings for the single and double track 

condition. Double track ratings were performed at 15mph and 40mph while single track ratings were 

performed at 15mph, as is the current operating condition of the bridge. Cooper loadings were used to 

generate E-Ratings for both Normal and Maximum rating requirements. In addition, Amtrak provided 

passenger loadings were used to generate Normal ratings with corresponding capacity-to-demand 

ratios for each member and Amtrak provided freight loadings were used to generate Maximum ratings 

with corresponding capacity-to-demand ratios for each member. Ratings for Amtrak loadings were only 

performed for single track condition at a speed of 15mph in as-inspected condition. A Diagram of each 

loading vehicle can be found in Appendix B.

The Ratings herein were performed in accordance with the American Railway and Maintenance of Way 

Association’s Manual for Railway Bridge Engineering (AREMA Manual), except as documented in this 

report, and standard railroad bridge engineering practice. Per standard practice the ratings are limited 

to the superstructure elements of the bridge only. As-built plans were available for the bridge and data 

from the plans was utilized in calculation of ratings. 

Two types of rating results are provided for each evaluated component, NORMAL and MAXIMUM. A 

Normal Rating is defined by the AREMA Manual as an indicator of the load level which can be routinely 

carried for the entirety of the bridge’s expected service life. The Maximum Rating is the load level which 

the structure can support at infrequent intervals, recognizing that the remaining useful life of the bridge, 

due to accumulated fatigue damage, may be shortened. 

Per the AREMA Manual, bridges are to be analyzed for a number of loads during bridge ratings 

including dead load, live load, impact, centrifugal force, wind forces, lateral force, longitudinal forces, 

and forces from continuous welded rail. Forces were utilized from the existing plans if applicable and 

seen as reasonable. A standard Cooper E80, Amtrak passenger (2P-42 diesel locomotives and train of 

6 horizon fleet coach cars), and Amtrak freight (2 locomotives SD60 and train of 286-kip cars) live loads

were used for the bridge rating. A Diagram of each loading vehicle can be found in Appendix B.

2
Each span was investigated for two load cases. The first case consisted of dead load, live load, and 

impact force acting concurrently with no increased allowable stress. The second case consisted of dead 

load, live load, impact force, wind force, lateral (nosing) force, and longitudinal force acting concurrently 

with increased allowable stress. 

A number of well thought out engineering assumptions are always required for any evaluation to be 

performed. For the load rating calculations, the following general assumptions were utilized:

All Spans

 Considered staggered bolt pattern in flanges of flexural members only.

 For all flexural members, the normal and maximum rating allowable stresses for shear are 

calculated at 0.35Fy and 0.75K respectively. An advanced analysis of allowable shear stresses 

was not undertaken for members that do not meet the web thickness and stiffener provisions of 

AREMA 15.1.7.8.

 Traction bracing not sufficient to carry longitudinal force (consider bi-axial bending in floorbeams).

 Stringer to floorbeam connection sufficient to carry longitudinal force (assumed hand driven grade 

1 rivets).

 Distributed longitudinal force between floorbeams based on stiffness in minor axis.

 Material of construction: “Soft” OH steel (Fy = 30ksi, Fu = 60ksi).

 Gross minor axis section properties were used when evaluating bi-axial bending (for both gross 

and net bi-axial bending).

 Live load based on AREMA E-80 vehicle.

 Wind forces on the bridge and dead load were resolved into point loads at panel points.

 Axial load was not considered in floor system members.

 Assume lateral equipment load acts at midspan and resolve into a couple (conservative case).

 Used inside-to-inside bridge width for floorbeam length (actual length) when calculating bending 

and shear stresses.

 Used center-to-center panel point lengths for modeling and girder/truss member lengths.

Girder Spans

 Used plan dead load.

 Curved track - a horizontal track offset equal to the maximum curved track offset was used to 

model live load.

 Surveyed track curvature and superelevation were used to calculate centrifugal forces.

 Girder section 1 occurs at midspan; a new section was evaluated as section properties changed 

along the girder.

 Span 9 was modeled because it is the longest curved track span. Loads generated from modeling 

of that span were used to evaluate spans 7 & 8.

 Wind was not considered on girders (on live load only).

 Longitudinal force and lateral equipment loads result in a neglibible axial stress in through girders.

These negligible axial stresses were not considered.

Fixed Truss

 Dead Load was estimated using a unit weight of steel as 490 lb/ft3 (x120% for gussets and 

bracing), track weight of 613 lb/ft.

3
 Truss dead load was resolved into point loads and modeled in SAP2000.

 Spans 1 & 3 were modeled with an extra dead load from a tower attached at one end of each 

truss. The dead load was applied at panel points L0 & U2.

 Wind on tower - surface areas of all tower members was calculated and the wind force was 

modeled to act at the centroid of the shape of the tower and was resolved into a couple that was 

applied as vertical point loads to the truss.

 Floorbeam section 1 occurs at midspan; section 2 occurs at the point where top and bottom 

flange cover plates drop off.

 Span 1 was modeled because it is the longest fixed truss span. Loads generated from modeling 

of that span were used to evaluate spans 3 - 5.

 Assumed end posts and verticals were laterally braced by end portal bracing and/or floorbeam 

knee bracing.

 Assumed sub divided diagonals were laterally braced at midpoints (except end posts).

Swing Truss

 Midspan fixed bearings are under a transverse cross girder (TCG), not the truss. To account for 

this in the 2D truss model the live load path was cut 1⁄2 panel short adjacent to the fixed bearings - 

eliminating the center stringers and 1⁄2 panel on either side of the TCG’s as a load path to prevent

the model from transferring load from the stringers through the transverse cross girder and into 

the truss members.

 Truss was modeled with center (L8-L8’) secondary members taken out.

 TCG (cases 3 & 4) - controlling load case occurs when last 1⁄2 panel point adjacent to the fixed 

support isn’t loaded (reduction in longitudinal force is negligible).

 Dead Load was estimated using a unit weight of steel as 490 lb/ft3 (x120% for gussets and 

bracing), track weight of 613 lb/ft (x120% for larger timbers/more steel). 

 Truss dead load was resolved into point loads and modeled in SAP2000.

 Uplift force for case 2 dead load was taken as the difference of the resultant reaction at the 

wedge, per plans, and the estimated dead load reaction. The dead load was modeled with the

ends of the bridge supported and a dead load reaction at the support was obtained. The 

difference of this reaction and the plan resultant reaction was assumed to be the uplift force.

 L8-L8’ member force was taken as the opposite of U8-U8’ member force.

 Floorbeam section 1 occurs at midspan; section 2 occurs at the point where top and bottom 

flange cover plates drop off.

 Assumed end posts and verticals were laterally braced by end portal bracing and/or floorbeam 

knee bracing.

As-inspected condition ratings were calculated based on inspection findings and measured steel section 

losses. A list of section losses per span can be found in Appendix C.

The controlling Normal single track as-inspected condition Cooper E-rating (15mph) for this bridge is an 

E9 in Span 2, Stringers 3 & 4 between Panel Points L7 and L8. The controlling Maximum single track asinspected condition Cooper E-rating (15mph) for the bridge is E12 in the same members. The controlling 

Normal single track as-inspected condition Amtrak passenger rating factor (15mph) for this bridge is 0.22 

in Span 2, Stringers 3 & 4 between Panel Points L7 and L8. The controlling Normal capacity-to-demand 

ratio for these members is 0.29. The controlling Maximum single track as-inspected condition Amtrak 

4
freight rating factor (15mph) for the bridge is 0.22 in the same members. The controlling Maximum 

capacity-to-demand ratio for these members is 0.29. 

A section loss of 75% of the top flange was observed in Stringers 3 & 4 of Span 2, located between Panel 

Points L7 & L8. This section loss causes a large reduction in the allowable flexure stress and is the cause 

of the resulting low rating factor. If these members were restored to their as-built condition, the controlling 

Normal single track as-inspected condition Cooper E-rating (15mph) for this bridge would be E47 in Span 

2, Floorbeam Hangers L1M1/L1’M1’ and L7M7/L7’M7’. The controlling Maximum single track asinspected condition Cooper E-rating (15mph) for the bridge would be E59 in Span 2, Floorbeam 1 – a

section loss of 75% of the portion of the bottom flange cover plate extending beyond the horizontal legs of 

the bottom flange angles was observed in Floorbeam 1. The controlling Normal single track as-inspected 

condition Amtrak passenger rating factor (15mph) for this bridge would be 0.82 in Span 2, Floorbeam 1.

The controlling Normal capacity-to-demand ratio for this member is 0.84. The controlling Maximum single 

track as-inspected condition Amtrak freight rating factor (15mph) for the bridge would be 0.81 in the same 

member. The controlling Maximum capacity-to-demand ratio for this member is 0.83. 

Summary tables for the rating results for each load case, per span, are included within this report. Also 

included are the detailed calculations for each load case, per span.

Gusset plates for truss Spans 1 through 5 were analyzed and rated. The results are reported in the 

“Gusset Plate Analysis and Rating” report dated January 2017. 

5

7


PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 40mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 1 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal Rating Maximum Rating

1 28 45 28 39 FB Hangers FB 0

2 25 40 7 10 Stringers 3&4 Stringers 3&4

3 28 45 28 39 FB Hangers FB 0’

4 28 45 28 45 FB Hangers End FB’s

5 28 45 28 45 FB Hangers FB 0

6 35 41 35 41 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

7 31 37 31 37 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

8 31 37 31 37 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

9 31 37 31 37 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

Controlling 25 37 7 10 Span 2 Span 2

As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Double Track Rating Summary (40 mph)

Span Controlling Member

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

10
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 40mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 2 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 82 99 82 99

L2L4 83 100 82 99

L4L6 82 101 82 101

L0M1 72 113 72 113

M1U2 74 115 74 115

U2U4 69 110 69 110

U4U6 74 118 74 118

L1M1/L3M3 28 46 28 46

L2U2 79 120 79 120

L4U4 118 179 114 173

L5M5 28 46 28 46

L6U6 199 292 199 292

M1L2 70 106 70 106

L2M3 71 107 71 107

U2M3 84 130 84 130

M3L4 92 141 92 141

L4M5 71 109 71 109

M5U6 111 165 111 165

U4M5 139 206 139 206

M5L6 184 269 184 269

STR 53 77 53 77

INT FB (Sect. 1) 41 48 35 41

INT FB (Sect. 2) 50 59 48 56

END FB (Sect. 1) 38 45 34 39

END FB (Sect. 2) 47 55 45 53

Controlling 28 45 28 39

Span 1 Double Track Rating Summary (40 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

11
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 40mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 3 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 73 85 73 85

L2L4 73 85 73 85

L4L6 84 104 84 104

L6L8 85 106 85 106

L8L8' 58 110 44 89

L0M1 83 119 83 119

M1U2 85 120 85 120

U2U4 103 143 103 143

U4U6 103 143 103 143

U6U8 74 134 74 134

U8U8' 78 139 78 139

L1M1 25 40 25 40

L3M3 26 41 26 41

L5M5 25 41 25 41

L7M7 25 40 25 40

L2U2 77 116 77 116

L4U4 ‐‐‐‐

L6U6 76 115 76 115

L8M8 89 158 89 158

M8U8 96 168 96 168

M1L2 77 115 77 115

L2M3 81 121 81 121

M5L6 80 120 80 120

L6M7 78 116 78 116

U2M3 168 242 168 242

M3L4 113 180 113 180

L4M5 86 140 86 140

M5U6 76 125 76 125

U6M7 66 100 66 100

M7L8 66 101 66 101

TYP STR 54 78 7 10

TYP STR (w/ hole) 54 78 54 78

CNTR STR 65 94 65 94

INT FB (Sect. 1) 36 42 27 32

INT FB (Sect. 2) 36 42 35 41

END FB (Sect. 1) 35 49 35 47

END FB (Sect. 2) 46 54 44 52

TCG (Midspan) 53 63 53 63

TCG (@ Bearing) 33 75 33 75

Controlling 25 40 7 10

As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Span 2 Double Track Rating Summary (40 mph)

Member

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

12
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 40mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 4 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 82 99 82 99

L2L4 83 100 83 99

L4L6 82 101 82 100

L0M1 72 113 72 113

M1U2 74 115 74 115

U2U4 69 110 69 110

U4U6 74 118 74 118

L1M1/L3M3 28 46 28 46

L2U2 79 120 79 120

L4U4 118 179 118 179

L5M5 28 46 28 46

L6U6 199 292 199 292

M1L2 70 106 70 106

L2M3 71 107 71 107

U2M3 84 130 84 130

M3L4 92 141 92 141

L4M5 71 109 71 109

M5U6 111 165 111 165

U4M5 139 206 139 206

M5L6 184 269 184 269

STR 53 77 53 77

INT FB (Sect. 1) 41 48 40 47

INT FB (Sect. 2) 50 59 50 59

END FB (Sect. 1) 38 45 33 39

END FB (Sect. 2) 47 55 47 55

Controlling 28 45 28 39

As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Span 3 Double Track Rating Summary (40 mph)

Member

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

13
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 40mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 5 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 83 99 80 96

L2L4 84 100 82 98

L4L6 82 101 82 101

L0M1 73 113 73 113

M1U2 75 116 75 116

U2U4 69 110 69 110

U4U6 75 118 75 118

L1M1/L3M3 28 46 28 46

L2U2 79 120 79 120

L4U4 118 180 118 180

L5M5 28 45 28 45

L6U6 199 292 192 281

M1L2 70 106 70 106

L2M3 71 107 71 107

U2M3 84 131 84 131

M3L4 92 142 92 142

L4M5 71 110 71 110

M5U6 111 166 111 166

U4M5 139 206 139 206

M5L6 184 269 184 269

STR 53 77 53 77

INT FB (Sect. 1) 41 48 41 48

INT FB (Sect. 2) 50 59 47 55

END FB (Sect. 1) 46 54 46 54

END FB (Sect. 2) 59 69 56 66

Controlling 28 45 28 45

Span 4 Double Track Rating Summary (40 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

14
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 40mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 6 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 83 99 83 99

L2L4 84 100 84 100

L4L6 82 101 82 101

L0M1 73 113 73 113

M1U2 75 116 75 116

U2U4 69 110 69 110

U4U6 75 118 75 118

L1M1/L3M3 28 46 28 46

L2U2 79 120 79 120

L4U4 118 180 118 180

L5M5 28 45 28 45

L6U6 199 292 199 292

M1L2 70 106 70 106

L2M3 71 107 71 107

U2M3 84 131 84 131

M3L4 92 142 92 142

L4M5 71 110 71 110

M5U6 111 166 111 166

U4M5 139 206 139 206

M5L6 184 269 184 269

STR 53 77 53 77

INT FB (Sect. 1) 41 48 41 48

INT FB (Sect. 2) 50 59 50 59

END FB (Sect. 1) 46 54 46 54

END FB (Sect. 2) 59 69 58 68

Controlling 28 45 28 45

As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Span 5 Double Track Rating Summary (40 mph)

Member

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

15
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 40mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 7 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 65 100 65 100

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 65 99 65 99

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 79 120 78 118

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 78 119 76 117

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 97 147 95 143

STRINGER 73 111 73 111

INT FB 35 41 35 41

END FB 36 43 36 43

Controlling 35 41 35 41

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 47 72 47 72

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 48 74 48 74

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 47 72 47 72

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 50 76 50 76

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 61 93 61 93

STRINGER (1&3) 42 64 42 64

STRINGER (2&4) 73 111 48 69

INT FB 31 37 31 37

END FB 35 41 35 41

Controlling 31 37 31 37

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 47 72 47 72

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 48 74 48 74

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 47 72 47 72

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 50 76 50 76

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 61 93 61 93

STRINGER (1&3) 42 64 42 64

STRINGER (2&4) 73 111 53 77

INT FB 31 37 31 37

END FB 35 41 35 41

Controlling 31 37 31 37

Span 6 Double Track Rating Summary (40 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Span 8 Double Track Rating Summary (40 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

*Span 8 As‐Built Rating was not performed; Span 8 section losses were applied to Span 9 AS‐Built Rating

to produce Span 8 Existing Ratings since the loads seen in Span 9 are slightly higher.

*Span 7 As‐Built Rating was not performed; Span 7 section losses were applied to Span 9 AS‐Built Rating

to produce Span 7 Existing Ratings since the loads seen in Span 9 are slightly higher.

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Span 7 Double Track Rating Summary (40 mph)

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

16
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 40mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 8 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 47 72 47 72

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 48 74 48 74

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 47 72 47 72

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 50 76 50 76

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 61 93 61 93

STRINGER (1&3) 42 64 38 55

STRINGER (2&4) 73 111 54 78

INT FB 31 37 31 37

END FB 35 41 35 41

Controlling 31 37 31 37

Span 9 Double Track Rating Summary (40 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

17

PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 1 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal Rating Maximum Rating

1 33 47 33 42 FB Hangers FB 0

2 29 44 9 12 Stringers 3&4 Stringers 3&4

3 33 47 33 41 FB Hangers FB 0’

4 33 52 33 52 FB Hangers End FB’s

5 33 52 33 52 FB Hangers FB 0

6 37 44 37 44 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

7 36 43 36 43 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

8 36 43 36 43 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

9 36 43 36 43 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

Controlling 29 43 9 12 Span 2 Span 2

As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Double Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Span Controlling Member

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

19
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 2 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 88 105 88 105

L2L4 89 106 88 105

L4L6 90 108 90 108

L0M1 79 123 79 123

M1U2 81 126 81 126

U2U4 76 120 76 120

U4U6 81 129 81 129

L1M1/L3M3 33 54 33 54

L2U2 91 138 91 138

L4U4 129 196 124 189

L5M5 33 53 33 53

L6U6 230 336 230 336

M1L2 81 124 81 124

L2M3 83 125 83 125

U2M3 92 143 92 143

M3L4 101 155 101 155

L4M5 78 120 78 120

M5U6 122 181 122 181

U4M5 152 225 152 225

M5L6 201 294 201 294

STR 62 89 62 89

INT FB (Sect. 1) 44 52 37 44

INT FB (Sect. 2) 55 64 52 61

END FB (Sect. 1) 40 47 36 42

END FB (Sect. 2) 50 59 48 56

Controlling 33 47 33 42

Span 1 Double Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

20
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 3 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 79 91 79 91

L2L4 79 92 79 92

L4L6 88 109 88 109

L6L8 89 111 89 111

L8L8' 65 122 48 99

L0M1 92 131 92 131

M1U2 94 133 94 133

U2U4 114 158 114 158

U4U6 114 158 114 158

U6U8 82 148 82 148

U8U8' 86 154 86 154

L1M1 29 44 29 44

L3M3 30 45 30 45

L5M5 30 45 30 45

L7M7 29 45 29 44

L2U2 88 133 88 133

L4U4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

L6U6 88 133 88 133

L8M8 98 175 98 175

M8U8 107 186 107 186

M1L2 90 135 90 135

L2M3 94 141 94 141

M5L6 94 141 94 141

L6M7 91 136 91 136

U2M3 185 268 185 268

M3L4 125 199 125 199

L4M5 95 155 95 155

M5U6 84 138 84 138

U6M7 73 111 73 111

M7L8 73 111 73 111

TYP STR 62 90 9 12

TYP STR (w/ hole) 62 90 62 90

CNTR STR 75 108 75 108

INT FB (Sect. 1) 39 46 30 35

INT FB (Sect. 2) 39 46 38 44

END FB (Sect. 1) 39 52 39 51

END FB (Sect. 2) 50 58 48 56

TCG (Midspan) 55 65 55 65

TCG (@ Bearing) 37 83 37 83

Controlling 29 44 9 12

Span 2 Double Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

21
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 4 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 88 105 88 105

L2L4 89 106 88 106

L4L6 90 108 89 108

L0M1 79 123 79 123

M1U2 81 126 81 126

U2U4 76 120 76 120

U4U6 81 129 81 129

L1M1/L3M3 33 54 33 54

L2U2 91 138 91 138

L4U4 129 196 129 196

L5M5 33 53 33 53

L6U6 230 336 230 336

M1L2 81 124 81 124

L2M3 83 125 83 125

U2M3 92 143 92 143

M3L4 101 155 101 155

L4M5 78 120 78 120

M5U6 122 181 122 181

U4M5 152 225 152 225

M5L6 201 294 201 294

STR 62 89 62 89

INT FB (Sect. 1) 44 52 43 51

INT FB (Sect. 2) 55 64 55 64

END FB (Sect. 1) 40 47 35 41

END FB (Sect. 2) 50 59 50 59

Controlling 33 47 33 41

Span 3 Double Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

22
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 5 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 89 106 86 102

L2L4 89 107 87 105

L4L6 90 109 90 109

L0M1 80 124 80 124

M1U2 82 127 82 127

U2U4 76 121 76 121

U4U6 82 129 82 129

L1M1/L3M3 33 54 33 54

L2U2 91 138 91 138

L4U4 130 197 130 197

L5M5 33 53 33 53

L6U6 230 336 221 323

M1L2 81 124 81 124

L2M3 83 125 83 125

U2M3 92 143 92 143

M3L4 101 155 101 155

L4M5 78 120 78 120

M5U6 122 182 122 182

U4M5 152 226 152 226

M5L6 202 295 202 295

STR 62 89 62 89

INT FB (Sect. 1) 44 52 44 52

INT FB (Sect. 2) 55 64 51 61

END FB (Sect. 1) 49 58 49 58

END FB (Sect. 2) 63 74 61 71

Controlling 33 52 33 52

Span 4 Double Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

23
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 6 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 89 106 89 106

L2L4 89 107 89 107

L4L6 90 109 90 109

L0M1 80 124 80 124

M1U2 82 127 82 127

U2U4 76 121 76 121

U4U6 82 129 82 129

L1M1/L3M3 33 54 33 54

L2U2 91 138 91 138

L4U4 130 197 130 197

L5M5 33 53 33 53

L6U6 230 336 230 336

M1L2 81 124 81 124

L2M3 83 125 83 125

U2M3 92 143 92 143

M3L4 101 155 101 155

L4M5 78 120 78 120

M5U6 122 182 122 182

U4M5 152 226 152 226

M5L6 202 295 202 295

STR 62 89 62 89

INT FB (Sect. 1) 44 52 44 52

INT FB (Sect. 2) 55 64 55 64

END FB (Sect. 1) 49 58 49 58

END FB (Sect. 2) 63 74 63 74

Controlling 33 52 33 52

Span 5 Double Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

24
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 7 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 74 113 74 113

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 74 113 74 113

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 90 136 88 134

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 89 135 87 132

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 110 166 108 163

STRINGER 85 129 85 129

INT FB 37 44 37 44

END FB 39 46 39 46

Controlling 37 44 37 44

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 65 99 65 99

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 66 101 66 101

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 65 99 65 99

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 68 104 68 104

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 84 127 84 127

STRINGER (1&3) 59 91 59 91

STRINGER (2&4) 85 129 55 80

INT FB 36 43 36 43

END FB 40 47 40 47

Controlling 36 43 36 43

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 65 99 65 99

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 66 101 66 101

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 65 99 65 99

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 68 104 68 104

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 84 127 84 127

STRINGER (1&3) 59 91 59 91

STRINGER (2&4) 85 129 62 89

INT FB 36 43 36 43

END FB 40 47 40 47

Controlling 36 43 36 43

Span 6 Double Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member

Span 7 Double Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Span 8 Double Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

*Span 7 As‐Built Rating was not performed; Span 7 section losses were applied to Span 9 AS‐Built Rating

to produce Span 7 Existing Ratings since the loads seen in Span 9 are slightly higher.

*Span 8 As‐Built Rating was not performed; Span 8 section losses were applied to Span 9 AS‐Built Rating

to produce Span 8 Existing Ratings since the loads seen in Span 9 are slightly higher.

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

25
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Double Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 8 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 65 99 65 99

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 66 101 66 101

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 65 99 65 99

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 68 104 68 104

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 84 127 84 127

STRINGER (1&3) 59 91 55 79

STRINGER (2&4) 85 129 63 91

INT FB 36 43 36 43

END FB 40 47 40 47

Controlling 36 43 36 43

Span 9 Double Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

26

PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 1 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal Rating Maximum Rating

1 51 79 51 70 FB Hangers FB 0

2 47 68 9 12 Stringers 3&4 Stringers 3&4

3 51 79 51 68 FB Hangers FB 0’

4 51 83 51 83 FB Hangers End FB’s

5 51 83 51 83 FB Hangers FB 0

6 63 74 63 74 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

7 58 69 55 69 Stringer 4 Int. FB’s

8 58 69 58 69 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

9 58 69 55 69 Stringers 1&3 Int. FB’s

Controlling 47 68 9 12 Span 2 Span 2

Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Span As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling Controlling Member

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

28
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 2 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 121 145 121 145

L2L4 122 147 122 146

L4L6 125 150 125 150

L0M1 111 172 111 172

M1U2 113 175 113 175

U2U4 105 168 105 168

U4U6 113 179 113 179

L1M1/L3M3 52 84 52 84

L2U2 126 192 126 192

L4U4 180 273 173 263

L5M5 51 83 51 83

L6U6 320 468 320 468

M1L2 114 173 114 173

L2M3 115 175 115 175

U2M3 129 199 129 199

M3L4 140 215 140 215

L4M5 109 167 109 167

M5U6 169 252 169 252

U4M5 212 314 212 314

M5L6 280 409 280 409

STR 62 89 62 89

INT FB (Sect. 1) 74 87 63 74

INT FB (Sect. 2) 80 94 76 90

END FB (Sect. 1) 68 79 59 70

END FB (Sect. 2) 74 87 70 83

Controlling 51 79 51 70

Span 1 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

29
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 3 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 109 126 109 126

L2L4 109 127 109 127

L4L6 121 150 121 150

L6L8 123 152 123 152

L8L8' 90 170 68 137

L0M1 128 183 128 183

M1U2 131 185 131 185

U2U4 158 220 158 220

U4U6 158 220 158 220

U6U8 114 206 114 206

U8U8' 120 214 120 214

L1M1 47 76 47 76

L3M3 48 78 48 78

L5M5 48 77 48 77

L7M7 47 76 47 76

L2U2 123 186 123 186

L4U4 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

L6U6 123 185 123 185

L8M8 137 243 137 243

M8U8 148 259 148 259

M1L2 126 188 126 188

L2M3 132 197 132 197

M5L6 131 196 131 196

L6M7 127 190 127 190

U2M3 258 373 258 373

M3L4 174 277 174 277

L4M5 133 215 133 215

M5U6 117 192 117 192

U6M7 102 154 102 154

M7L8 102 155 102 155

TYP STR 62 90 9 12

TYP STR (w/ hole) 62 90 62 90

CNTR STR 75 108 75 108

INT FB (Sect. 1) 65 76 50 59

INT FB (Sect. 2) 58 68 55 65

END FB (Sect. 1) 54 88 54 85

END FB (Sect. 2) 73 86 70 82

TCG (Midspan) 91 107 90 107

TCG (@ Bearing) 52 116 52 116

Controlling 47 68 9 12

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Span 2 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

30
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 4 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 121 145 121 145

L2L4 122 147 122 146

L4L6 125 150 124 149

L0M1 111 172 111 172

M1U2 113 175 113 175

U2U4 105 168 105 168

U4U6 113 179 113 179

L1M1/L3M3 52 84 52 84

L2U2 126 192 126 192

L4U4 180 273 180 273

L5M5 51 83 51 83

L6U6 320 468 320 468

M1L2 114 173 114 173

L2M3 115 175 115 175

U2M3 129 199 129 199

M3L4 140 215 140 215

L4M5 109 167 109 167

M5U6 169 252 169 252

U4M5 212 314 212 314

M5L6 280 409 280 409

STR 62 89 62 89

INT FB (Sect. 1) 74 87 72 85

INT FB (Sect. 2) 80 94 80 94

END FB (Sect. 1) 68 79 58 68

END FB (Sect. 2) 74 87 74 87

Controlling 51 79 51.00 68

Span 3 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

31
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 5 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 122 146 118 141

L2L4 123 148 120 144

L4L6 125 150 125 150

L0M1 111 173 111 173

M1U2 114 177 114 177

U2U4 106 168 106 168

U4U6 114 180 114 180

L1M1/L3M3 52 84 52 84

L2U2 126 192 126 192

L4U4 180 274 180 274

L5M5 51 83 51 83

L6U6 320 468 307 450

M1L2 114 173 114 173

L2M3 115 175 115 175

U2M3 129 199 129 199

M3L4 141 216 141 216

L4M5 109 167 109 167

M5U6 170 253 170 253

U4M5 212 315 212 315

M5L6 281 411 281 411

STR 62 89 62 89

INT FB (Sect. 1) 74 87 74 87

INT FB (Sect. 2) 80 94 76 89

END FB (Sect. 1) 83 97 83 97

END FB (Sect. 2) 93 109 89 104

Controlling 51 83 51 83

Span 4 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

32
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 6 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

L0L2 122 146 122 146

L2L4 123 148 123 148

L4L6 125 150 125 150

L0M1 111 173 111 173

M1U2 114 177 114 177

U2U4 106 168 106 168

U4U6 114 180 114 180

L1M1/L3M3 52 84 52 84

L2U2 126 192 126 192

L4U4 180 274 180 274

L5M5 51 83 51 83

L6U6 320 468 320 468

M1L2 114 173 114 173

L2M3 115 175 115 175

U2M3 129 199 129 199

M3L4 141 216 141 216

L4M5 109 167 109 167

M5U6 170 253 170 253

U4M5 212 315 212 315

M5L6 281 411 281 411

STR 62 89 62 89

INT FB (Sect. 1) 74 87 74 87

INT FB (Sect. 2) 80 94 80 94

END FB (Sect. 1) 83 97 82 96

END FB (Sect. 2) 93 109 93 108

Controlling 51 83 51 83

Span 5 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

33
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 7 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 105 161 105 161

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 104 160 104 160

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 127 193 125 190

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 126 191 123 187

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 156 236 152 230

STRINGER 85 129 85 129

INT FB 63 74 63 74

END FB 66 77 66 77

Controlling 63 74 63 74

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 94 143 94 143

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 95 146 95 146

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 94 144 94 144

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 99 152 99 152

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 122 185 122 185

STRINGER (1&3) 59 91 59 91

STRINGER (2&4) 85 129 55 80

INT FB 58 69 58 69

END FB 64 75 64 75

Controlling 58 69 55 69

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 94 143 94 143

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 95 146 95 146

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 94 144 94 144

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 99 152 99 152

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 122 185 122 185

STRINGER (1&3) 59 91 59 91

STRINGER (2&4) 85 129 62 89

INT FB 58 69 58 69

END FB 64 75 64 75

Controlling 58 69 58 69

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Span 6 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Span 7 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Span 8 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

*Span 7 As‐Built Rating was not performed; Span 7 section losses were applied to Span 9 AS‐Built Rating

to produce Span 7 Existing Ratings since the loads seen in Span 9 are slightly higher.

*Span 8 As‐Built Rating was not performed; Span 8 section losses were applied to Span 9 AS‐Built Rating

to produce Span 8 Existing Ratings since the loads seen in Span 9 are slightly higher.

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

34
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Rating Summary

By JAG 5/11/16

Ck'd By TER 5/11/16

Sheet 8 of 8

Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating Normal E‐Rating Maximum E‐Rating

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 94 143 94 143

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 95 146 95 146

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 94 144 94 144

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 99 152 99 152

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 122 185 122 185

STRINGER (1&3) 59 91 55 79

STRINGER (2&4) 85 129 63 91

INT FB 58 69 58 69

END FB 64 75 64 75

Controlling 58 69 55 69

Span 9 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Member As‐built Controlling As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary.xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:07 AM

35

PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Amtrak Rating Summary

By JAG 1/4/17

Ck'd By JES 1/4/17

Sheet 1 of 8

Normal          

Rating Factor

Normal       

Capacity/Demand

Maximum          

Rating Factor

Maximum        

Capacity/Demand

Normal             

Rating Factor

Maximum          

Rating Factor

1 0.95 0.96 1.03 1.03 FB Hangers FB 0

2 0.22 0.29 0.22 0.29 Stringers 3&4 Stringers 3&4

3 0.93 0.94 1.01 1.01 FB Hangers FB 0’

4 1.35 1.33 1.34 1.32 FB Hangers End FB’s

5 1.35 1.33 1.34 1.32 FB Hangers FB 0

6 1.09 1.09 1.12 1.12 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

7 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.05 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

8 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.05 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

9 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.05 Int. FB’s Int. FB’s

Controlling 0.22 0.29 0.22 0.29 Span 2 Span 2

Span

As‐inspected Controlling Controlling Member

Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph)

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary (Amtrak).xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:11 AM

37
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Amtrak Rating Summary

By JAG 1/4/17

Ck'd By JES 1/4/17

Sheet 2 of 8

Normal             

Rating Factor

Normal       

Capacity/Demand

Maximum          

Rating Factor

Maximum        

Capacity/Demand

L0L2 2.89 2.19 2.45 2.03

L2L4 2.83 2.13 2.44 2.00

L4L6 3.14 2.22 2.57 2.04

L0M1 3.66 2.34 3.16 2.35

M1U2 3.78 2.37 3.27 2.38

U2U4 3.39 2.18 3.07 2.30

U4U6 3.63 2.33 3.34 2.48

L1M1/L3M3 1.52 1.39 1.47 1.39

L2U2 3.57 2.68 3.50 2.85

L4U4 5.20 3.33 4.89 3.54

L5M5 1.50 1.37 1.46 1.37

L6U6 9.18 6.86 8.38 6.63

M1L2 3.29 2.55 3.02 2.56

L2M3 3.35 2.64 3.05 2.62

U2M3 4.07 2.64 3.77 2.80

M3L4 4.24 2.83 4.03 3.02

L4M5 3.22 2.41 3.19 2.57

M5U6 4.95 3.80 4.65 3.82

U4M5 6.36 4.63 5.84 4.64

M5L6 7.94 6.72 7.53 6.55

STR 1.51 1.48 1.54 1.50

INT FB (Sect. 1) 1.14 1.13 1.13 1.13

INT FB (Sect. 2) 1.46 1.42 1.40 1.38

END FB (Sect. 1) 0.95 0.96 1.03 1.03

END FB (Sect. 2) 1.15 1.15 1.22 1.22

Controlling 0.95 0.96 1.03 1.03

As‐inspected Controlling

Span 1 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph) Amtrak Passenger

Member

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary (Amtrak).xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:11 AM

38
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Amtrak Rating Summary

By JAG 1/4/17

Ck'd By JES 1/4/17

Sheet 3 of 8

Normal             

Rating Factor

Normal       

Capacity/Demand

Maximum          

Rating Factor

Maximum        

Capacity/Demand

L0L2 2.42 2.31 2.14 2.14

L2L4 2.40 2.28 2.18 2.16

L4L6 2.30 1.61 2.43 1.73

L6L8 2.33 1.64 2.46 1.76

L8L8' 2.85 1.37 2.36 1.51

L0M1 3.92 3.79 3.43 3.46

M1U2 4.07 4.21 3.57 3.78

U2U4 5.04 8.59 4.12 6.18

U4U6 5.04 8.59 4.12 6.08

U6U8 4.79 1.76 3.54 1.95

U8U8' 5.03 1.81 3.68 1.99

L1M1 1.19 1.15 1.20 1.18

L3M3 1.23 1.19 1.22 1.19

L5M5 1.23 1.18 1.22 1.19

L7M7 1.19 1.15 1.20 1.18

L2U2 3.39 2.68 3.36 2.83

L4U4 ‐‐‐‐

L6U6 3.39 2.67 3.34 2.82

L8M8 5.75 1.89 4.18 2.12

M8U8 6.23 2.00 4.44 2.23

M1L2 3.51 2.89 3.14 2.78

L2M3 3.76 3.08 3.25 2.89

M5L6 3.74 3.06 3.25 2.88

L6M7 3.51 2.89 3.15 2.79

U2M3 9.21 3.43 6.41 3.61

M3L4 5.21 2.62 4.72 2.93

L4M5 4.00 2.20 3.70 2.44

M5U6 3.83 2.08 3.31 2.23

U6M7 3.15 2.36 2.97 2.40

M7L8 3.13 2.37 2.90 2.39

TYP STR 0.22 0.29 0.22 0.29

TYP STR (w/ hole) 1.41 1.39 1.57 1.52

CNTR STR 1.88 1.81 1.90 1.81

INT FB (Sect. 1) 0.82 0.84 0.81 0.83

INT FB (Sect. 2) 0.92 0.94 0.90 0.92

END FB (Sect. 1) 1.01 1.02 1.27 1.26

END FB (Sect. 2) 1.16 1.16 1.22 1.21

TCG (Midspan) 1.43 1.37 1.57 1.51

TCG (@ Bearing) 1.59 1.27 1.66 1.43

Controlling 0.22 0.29 0.22 0.29

Member

Span 2 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph) Amtrak Passenger

As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary (Amtrak).xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:11 AM

39
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Amtrak Rating Summary

By JAG 1/4/17

Ck'd By JES 1/4/17

Sheet 4 of 8

Normal             

Rating Factor

Normal       

Capacity/Demand

Maximum          

Rating Factor

Maximum        

Capacity/Demand

L0L2 2.89 2.19 2.45 2.03

L2L4 2.83 2.12 2.44 2.00

L4L6 3.12 2.21 2.56 2.03

L0M1 3.66 2.34 3.16 2.35

M1U2 3.78 2.37 3.27 2.38

U2U4 3.39 2.18 3.07 2.30

U4U6 3.63 2.33 3.34 2.48

L1M1/L3M3 1.52 1.39 1.47 1.39

L2U2 3.57 2.68 3.50 2.85

L4U4 5.40 3.44 5.08 3.66

L5M5 1.50 1.37 1.46 1.37

L6U6 9.18 6.86 8.38 6.63

M1L2 3.29 2.55 3.02 2.56

L2M3 3.35 2.64 3.05 2.62

U2M3 4.07 2.64 3.77 2.80

M3L4 4.24 2.83 4.03 3.02

L4M5 3.22 2.41 3.19 2.57

M5U6 4.95 3.80 4.65 3.82

U4M5 6.36 4.63 5.84 4.64

M5L6 7.94 6.72 7.53 6.55

STR 1.51 1.48 1.54 1.50

INT FB (Sect. 1) 1.33 1.31 1.31 1.29

INT FB (Sect. 2) 1.53 1.49 1.47 1.44

END FB (Sect. 1) 0.93 0.94 1.01 1.01

END FB (Sect. 2) 1.21 1.20 1.28 1.28

Controlling 0.93 0.94 1.01 1.01

Span 3 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph) Amtrak Passenger

As‐inspected Controlling

Member

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary (Amtrak).xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:11 AM

40
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Amtrak Rating Summary

By JAG 1/4/17

Ck'd By JES 1/4/17

Sheet 5 of 8

Normal             

Rating Factor

Normal       

Capacity/Demand

Maximum          

Rating Factor

Maximum        

Capacity/Demand

L0L2 2.80 2.15 2.38 1.98

L2L4 2.79 2.11 2.41 1.98

L4L6 3.14 2.23 2.58 2.05

L0M1 3.69 2.37 3.17 2.37

M1U2 3.82 2.40 3.29 2.41

U2U4 3.40 2.20 3.08 2.32

U4U6 3.65 2.34 3.35 2.50

L1M1/L3M3 1.52 1.39 1.47 1.39

L2U2 3.57 2.68 3.50 2.85

L4U4 5.41 3.46 5.08 3.67

L5M5 1.50 1.37 1.46 1.37

L6U6 8.82 6.60 8.06 6.39

M1L2 3.29 2.55 3.02 2.56

L2M3 3.35 2.64 3.05 2.62

U2M3 4.08 2.66 3.78 2.81

M3L4 4.25 2.85 4.03 3.04

L4M5 3.23 2.43 3.19 2.58

M5U6 4.56 2.98 4.40 3.21

U4M5 6.37 4.67 5.84 4.66

M5L6 7.96 6.79 7.54 6.60

STR 1.51 1.48 1.54 1.50

INT FB (Sect. 1) 1.35 1.33 1.34 1.32

INT FB (Sect. 2) 1.45 1.41 1.39 1.36

END FB (Sect. 1) 1.35 1.34 1.44 1.43

END FB (Sect. 2) 1.48 1.46 1.56 1.54

Controlling 1.35 1.33 1.34 1.32

As‐inspected Controlling

Member

Span 4 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph) Amtrak Passenger

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary (Amtrak).xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:11 AM

41
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Amtrak Rating Summary

By JAG 1/4/17

Ck'd By JES 1/4/17

Sheet 6 of 8

Normal             

Rating Factor

Normal       

Capacity/Demand

Maximum          

Rating Factor

Maximum        

Capacity/Demand

L0L2 2.90 2.21 2.46 2.04

L2L4 2.85 2.15 2.47 2.02

L4L6 3.14 2.23 2.58 2.05

L0M1 3.69 2.37 3.17 2.37

M1U2 3.82 2.40 3.29 2.41

U2U4 3.40 2.20 3.08 2.32

U4U6 3.65 2.34 3.35 2.50

L1M1/L3M3 1.52 1.39 1.47 1.39

L2U2 3.57 2.68 3.50 2.85

L4U4 5.41 3.46 5.08 3.67

L5M5 1.50 1.37 1.46 1.37

L6U6 9.18 6.86 8.38 6.63

M1L2 3.29 2.55 3.02 2.56

L2M3 3.35 2.64 3.05 2.62

U2M3 4.08 2.66 3.78 2.81

M3L4 4.25 2.85 4.03 3.04

L4M5 3.23 2.43 3.19 2.58

M5U6 4.56 2.98 4.40 3.21

U4M5 6.37 4.67 5.84 4.66

M5L6 7.96 6.79 7.54 6.60

STR 1.51 1.48 1.54 1.50

INT FB (Sect. 1) 1.35 1.33 1.34 1.32

INT FB (Sect. 2) 1.53 1.49 1.47 1.44

END FB (Sect. 1) 1.35 1.33 1.44 1.42

END FB (Sect. 2) 1.55 1.52 1.63 1.60

Controlling 1.35 1.33 1.34 1.32

Span 5 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph) Amtrak Passenger

Member

As‐inspected Controlling

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary (Amtrak).xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:11 AM

42
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Amtrak Rating Summary

By JAG 1/4/17

Ck'd By JES 1/4/17

Sheet 7 of 8

Normal             

Rating Factor

Normal       

Capacity/Demand

Maximum          

Rating Factor

Maximum        

Capacity/Demand

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 2.23 1.93 2.60 2.32

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 2.96 2.29 3.03 2.49

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 3.51 2.65 3.55 2.88

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 3.44 2.58 3.49 2.81

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 4.25 3.08 4.27 3.36

STRINGER 1.97 1.93 2.25 2.14

INT FB 1.12 1.12 1.12 1.12

END FB 1.09 1.09 1.16 1.15

Controlling 1.09 1.09 1.12 1.12

Normal             

Rating Factor

Normal       

Capacity/Demand

Maximum          

Rating Factor

Maximum        

Capacity/Demand

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 2.09 1.86 2.06 1.92

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 2.63 2.13 2.73 2.32

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 2.59 2.11 2.68 2.29

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 2.72 2.20 2.81 2.39

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 3.35 2.62 3.41 2.83

STRINGER (1&3) 1.39 1.38 1.58 1.55

STRINGER (2&4) 1.28 1.26 1.39 1.36

INT FB 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.05

END FB 1.08 1.08 1.13 1.13

Controlling 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.05

Normal             

Rating Factor

Normal       

Capacity/Demand

Maximum          

Rating Factor

Maximum        

Capacity/Demand

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 2.09 1.86 2.06 1.92

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 2.63 2.13 2.73 2.32

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 2.59 2.11 2.68 2.29

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 2.72 2.20 2.81 2.39

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 3.35 2.62 3.41 2.83

STRINGER (1&3) 1.39 1.38 1.58 1.55

STRINGER (2&4) 1.43 1.40 1.56 1.51

INT FB 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.05

END FB 1.08 1.08 1.13 1.13

Controlling 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.05

As‐inspected Controlling

Span 6 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph) Amtrak Passenger

Member

Span 7 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph) Amtrak Passenger

As‐inspected Controlling

*Span 7 As‐Built Rating was not performed; Span 7 section losses were applied to Span 9 AS‐Built Rating

to produce Span 7 Existing Ratings since the loads seen in Span 9 are slightly higher.

Span 8 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph) Amtrak Passenger

Member

*Span 8 As‐Built Rating was not performed; Span 8 section losses were applied to Span 9 AS‐Built Rating

to produce Span 8 Existing Ratings since the loads seen in Span 9 are slightly higher.

As‐inspected Controlling

Member

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary (Amtrak).xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:11 AM

43
PN 2950.01

Livingston Avenue Bridge

Load Rating Analysis

Single Track 15mph Amtrak Rating Summary

By JAG 1/4/17

Ck'd By JES 1/4/17

Sheet 8 of 8

Normal             

Rating Factor

Normal       

Capacity/Demand

Maximum          

Rating Factor

Maximum        

Capacity/Demand

GIRDER (Sect. 1) 2.09 1.86 2.06 1.92

GIRDER (Sect. 2) 2.63 2.13 2.73 2.32

GIRDER (Sect. 3) 2.59 2.11 2.68 2.29

GIRDER (Sect. 4) 2.72 2.20 2.81 2.39

GIRDER (Sect. 5) 3.35 2.62 3.41 2.83

STRINGER (1&3) 1.26 1.25 1.38 1.36

STRINGER (2&4) 1.39 1.37 1.59 1.54

INT FB 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.05

END FB 1.08 1.08 1.13 1.13

Controlling 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.05

As‐inspected Controlling

Span 9 Single Track Rating Summary (15 mph) Amtrak Passenger

Member

Z:\Project Files\2950.01 Livingston Ave Rating\Calculations\Structural\New\

Master Rating Summary (Amtrak).xlsx Printed on 2/2/2017, 11:11 AM

44



2

This report is a supplement to the “Load Rating Analysis” report dated January 2017 and should be 

referenced for load cases, member loads and live load diagrams pertaining to their use in the gusset 

analysis. The as-built and as-inspected ratings for the 260’-3” swing span and 174’-0” fixed span truss 

gusset plates were performed in accordance with the 2015 AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering. 

Gusset plates are rated for AREMA E80 loading at 40 miles per hour (mph) and 15mph for double track 

loading and 15mph for single track loading. The analysis conservatively used maximum member forces 

at each joint determined from the SAP2000 superstructure analysis. A standard Cooper E80, Amtrak 

passenger (2P-42 diesel locomotives and train of 6 horizon fleet coach cars), and Amtrak freight (2 

locomotives SD60 and train of 286-kip cars) live loads were used for the gusset ratings. 

Gusset Plate Analysis- Methodology

The following checks of the gusset plate are made in accordance with the AREMA Guidelines and 

supplemented with FHWA guidance and standard practice for gusset evaluations: 

 Capacity of Fasteners: 

o Shear Allowable Capacity of fasteners 

o Plate bearing Allowable Capacity 

 Compressive Capacity of gusset plates 

o Buckling of idealized columns 

o Truncated whitmore section (FHWA Guidance) 

o Partial plane shear yielding (FHWA Guidance) 

 Tensile Capacity of gusset plates 

o Yield on gross section 

o Fracture on net section 

o Block shear rupture 

 Shear Capacity of gusset plates 

o Shear yield 

o Shear fracture 

Evaluation Criteria and Assumptions

Evaluation Criteria: 

Symmetry of the 260’-3” swing span and 174’-0” fixed trusses was considered and ratings were 

determined for unique plates and plate groups, including similar gusset plates at different joints 

subjected to different loadings. Gusset plates grouped together because of geometric similarities were 

analyzed using the controlling joint forces. 

The lower chord is continuous through all interior lower joints. At these locations, the only force 

transferred into the gusset plate from the lower chord members is the difference in the lower chord 

forces on either side of the joint. Theoretically, forces are not transferred through the gusset plates at 

L1, L3, L5 and L7 of the 260’-3” swing truss span and L1, L3 and L5 of the 174’-0” fixed truss spans 

because, at these locations, the lower chord force is balanced through the joint and the load from the 

floorbeam is transferred directly into the hanger, thereby, eliminating the need to analyze and rate 

these plates. Joints L0 and L8 of the 260’-3” swing truss spans and L0 of the 174’-0” fixed truss spans 

were analyzed due to diagonal member forces at those joints. 

The critical representative of each group was analyzed and rated. The final gusset plate groupings are as 

follows: 

 260’-3” span bottom chord gusset plate groups – L1, L3, L5, L7 and L2 and L6 

 260’-3” span mid-height gusset plate groups – M1 and M7, M3 and M5 
 174’-0” span bottom chord gusset plate groups – L1, L3 and L5 

 174’-0” span mid-height gusset plate groups – M1 and M3 

The as-built geometry and configuration of the gusset plates were based on available original plan 

drawings and photo-imaging results. The photo-imaging procedure converts a digital photograph into a 

scalable CADD drawing. Photographs of select gusset plates were taken during MM’s inspection. Asinspected section properties were determined from section loss measurements reported by MM. 

Assumptions:

The 260’-3” swing span and 174’-0” fixed spans were conservatively evaluated using the lowest grade 

allowable stress for rivets according to AREMA guidelines. A normal loading rivet allowable stress equal 

to 11ksi and a maximum loading rivet allowable stress equal to 20ksi were utilized because the rivet 

material is unknown. The allowable rivet stress is conservative guidance given by AREMA due to the 

nature of the material being unknown. Further testing/evaluation of rivet material may result in more 

favorable ratings. The allowable stress assumptions above are significant because the gusset plate 

ratings are controlled by rivet shear as noted in the Results section below. Where vertical shear ratings 

were below 1.0, the gusset plate and any splice plates present at the joint were utilized to resist the 

vertical shear. 

Results

As- Built and As-Inspected rating tables for the gusset plates are summarized in the “Rating Summary”

section of this report for the 260’-3” (Span 2B) swing truss span and for the 174’-0” (Span 1,3,4 & 5) 

fixed truss span. The controlling gusset plate, L4 of the 174’-0” fixed truss, is controlled by rivet shear in 

diagonal member L4-M5 at the single track-15mph load case and has a normal E-Rating of 73. The 

controlling Capacity-to-Demand ratio is also controlled by rivet shear of the same member at the single 

track-15mph load case and has a C/D ratio of 1.26. Below is a table summarizing all loadcases and 

corresponding controlling ratings. 

Controlling As-Inspected E-Ratings

No. of

Tracks Speed Span Normal Rating Maximum Rating

Member E-Rating Controlling Member E Rating Controlling

Single 15 

mph

174’-0” L4-M5 E73 Rivet Shear - E87 Overall Splice

260’-3” U6-M7 E85 Partial Plane 

Shear Yielding - E116 Overall Splice 

Double 15 

mph

174’-0” L4-M5 E52 Rivet Shear - E63 Overall Splice

260’-3” L1-M1 E61 Rivet Shear U6-M7 E97 Partial Plane 

Shear Yielding

Double 40 

mph

174’-0” L4-M5 E48 Rivet Shear - E57 Overall Splice

260’-3” L1-M1 E53 Rivet Shear U6-M7 E80 Partial Plane 

Shear Yielding

Controlling As-Inspected Capacity-to-Demand Ratios

No. of Tracks Speed Span Normal C/D Ratios Maximum C/D Ratios

100% 125% 125%

Single 15 mph 174’-0” 1.72 1.26 1.40

260’-3” 1.62 1.54 1.94

3



Single Track Speed = 15mph Span 2B: 260’-3” Swing Span Span 1,3,4 & 5: 174’-0” Fixed Truss Span

L0 L1,L3,L5,L7 L2,L6 L4 L8 M1,M7 M3 M5 U2 U4 U6 U8 L0 L1,L3,L5 L2 L4 L6 M1 M3 M5 U2 U4 U6

Methodology (ASR) ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR

AS-INSPECTED E-RATINGS

Normal Ratings

End of Member 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

End of Member 2 - - E117 E125 E143 - E114 E114 E109 - E106 E108 - - E124 E108 E223 - E99 - - - E94

End of Member 3 - E86 E116 - E341 E115 E112 E112 - - E97 - - E125 E122 E250 E453 E123 E102 E123 E89 E234 E442

End of Member 4 E126 - E118 E122 - E110 - - E198 - E85 - E100 - E126 E73 E294 E119 - - E101 E175 E94

End of Member 5 E186 - - - - - - - - - - - E120 - - - - - - - - - - 

Horizontal Shear E179 - E606 E187 E246 E289 E200 E200 E205 - E93 E2748 E173 - E637 E155 E441 E286 E271 E235 E387 E432 E635

Vertical Shear - E179 E163 E169 E221 E176 E235 E235 E140 - *E99 E396 - E208 E201 E149 E280 E291 E263 E266 *E113 E312 E324

Overall Splice (See Note g) - - - - E156 - - - E96 - E107 E137 - - - - - - - - E85 - E88

Controlling As-Inspected Normal Ratings (See Note f) E126 E86 E116 E122 E143 E110 E112 E112 E96 - E85 E108 E100 E125 E122 E73 E223 E119 E99 E123 E85 E175 E88

Maximum Ratings

End of Member 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

End of Member 2 - - E222 E252 E298 - E217 E216 E211 - E233 E276 - - E239 E203 E410 - E192 - - - E181

End of Member 3 - E163 E223 - E702 E216 E210 E210 - - E188 - - E237 E238 E977 E831 E227 E195 E235 E178 E446 E812

End of Member 4 E251 - E226 E261 - E211 - - E385 - E122 - E203 - E241 E147 E514 E230 - - E205 E329 E181

End of Member 5 E220 - - - - - - - - - - - E183 - - - - - - - - - -

Horizontal Shear E354 - E1040 E356 E487 E509 E349 E349 E369 - E173 E4779 E315 - E1093 E283 E754 E493 E466 E413 E677 E750 E1086

Vertical Shear - E314 E288 E325 E407 E303 E409 E408 E252 - *E202 E683 - E366 E354 E233 E485 E501 E454 E466 *E210 E457 E557

Overall Splice (See Note g) - - - - E116 - - - E148 - E169 E220 - - - - - - - - E121 - E87

Controlling As-Inspected Max Ratings (See Note f) E220 E163 E222 E252 E116 E211 E210 E210 E148 - E122 E220 E183 E237 E238 E147 E410 E227 E192 E235 E121 E329 E87

AS-INSPECTED CAPACITY-TO–DEMAND RATIOS FOR 

AMTRAK EQUIPMENT PER EP4003

Controlling As-Inspected 100% Normal C/D Ratios 3.72 2.11 2.53 2.05 2.00 2.53 2.70 2.68 2.40 - 1.62 1.68 2.15 2.89 2.60 1.72 5.37 2.65 2.30 2.86 1.99 3.88 1.93

Controlling As-Inspected 125% Normal C/D Ratios 2.97 2.09 2.51 2.03 1.95 2.51 2.68 2.66 2.37 - 1.54 1.63 1.48 1.94 1.89 1.26 3.60 1.83 1.57 1.92 1.46 2.67 1.40

Controlling As-Inspected 125% Maximum C/D Ratios 3.44 2.49 3.24 2.70 2.30 3.05 3.13 3.12 3.17 - 1.94 2.03 2.30 3.53 3.44 2.29 6.55 3.32 2.85 3.50 1.98 4.85 1.40

(f)The ratings of the individual splice components were not considered when determining the controlling ratings.

(g)The capacity of the overall splice is taken as the sum of the capacities of all of its components.

*Splice plate area was utilized in the vertical shear capacity

7
Double Track, Speed = 40mph Span 2B: 260’-3” Swing Span Span 1,3,4 & 5: 174’-0” Fixed Truss Span

L0 L1,L3,L5,L7 L2,L6 L4 L8 M1,M7 M3 M5 U2 U4 U6 U8 L0 L1,L3,L5 L2 L4 L6 M1 M3 M5 U2 U4 U6

Methodology (ASR) ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR

AS-BUILT E-RATINGS

Normal Ratings

End of Member 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

End of Member 2 - - E72 E81 E93 - E70 E70 E68 - E69 E70 - - E76 E71 E146 - E61 - - - E62

End of Member 3 - E53 E72 - E222 E70 E69 E69 - - E60 - - E77 E76 E164 E283 E75 E63 E76 E56 E154 E276

End of Member 4 E82 - E72 E79 - E67 - - E128 - E69 - E65 - E77 E48 E193 E73 - - E66 E115 E62

End of Member 5 E109 - - - - - - - - - - - E79 - - - - - - - - - -

Horizontal Shear E116 - E373 E121 E160 E178 E123 E123 E129 - E60 E1786 E114 - E470 E102 E290 E175 E166 E145 E254 E284 E417

Vertical Shear - E110 E104 E113 E144 E107 E144 E144 E91 - *E63 E258 - E130 E129 E100 E180 E179 E161 E164 *E72 E205 E207

Overall Splice (See Note g) - - - - E92 - - - E62 - E69 E89 - - - - - - - - E56 - E58

Controlling As-Built Normal Ratings (See Note f) E82 E53 E72 E79 E92 E67 E69 E69 E62 - E60 E70 E65 E77 E76 E48 E146 E73 E61 E76 E56 E115 E58

Maximum Ratings

End of Member 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

End of Member 2 - - E99 E164 E194 - E86 E133 E132 - E151 E179 - - E147 E133 E269 - E118 - - - E119

End of Member 3 - E100 E139 - E456 E132 E129 E129 - - E117 - - E146 E148 E642 E519 E140 E120 E144 E111 E293 E507

End of Member 4 E146 - E137 E170 E506 E128 - - E251 - E80 - E133 - E148 E96 E338 E141 - - E135 E216 E119

End of Member 5 E138 - - - - - - - - - - - E115 - - - - - - - - - -

Horizontal Shear E202 - E465 E231 E301 E310 E215 E214 E233 - E113 E3106 E207 - E806 E186 E495 E303 E286 E253 E445 E493 E713

Vertical Shear - E193 E184 E216 E265 E184 E165 E251 E161 - *E129 E444 - E228 E227 E157 E312 E308 E279 E286 *E135 E300 E356

Overall Splice (See Note g) - - - - E98 - - - E86 - E109 E143 - - - - - - - - E79 - E57

Controlling As-Built Max Ratings (See Note f) E138 E100 E99 E164 E98 E128 E86 E129 E86 - E80 E143 E115 E146 E147 E96 E269 E140 E118 E144 E79 E216 E57

AS-INSPECTED E-RATINGS

Normal Ratings

End of Member 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

End of Member 2 - - E72 E81 E93 - E70 E70 E68 - E69 E70 - - E76 E71 E146 - E61 - - - E62

End of Member 3 - E53 E72 - E222 E70 E69 E69 - - E60 - - E77 E76 E164 E283 E75 E63 E76 E56 E154 E276

End of Member 4 E82 - E72 E79 - E67 - - E128 - E69 - E65 - E77 E48 E193 E73 - - E66 E115 E62

End of Member 5 E109 - - - - - - - - - - - E79 - - - - - - - - - -

Horizontal Shear E116 - E373 E121 E160 E178 E123 E123 E129 - E60 E1786 E114 - E391 E102 E290 E175 E166 E145 E254 E284 E417

Vertical Shear - E110 E102 E110 E144 E107 E144 E144 E91 - *E63 E258 - E128 E125 E98 E180 E179 E161 E164 *E72 E205 E207

Overall Splice (See Note g) - - - - E92 - - - E62 - E69 E89 - - - - - - - - E56 - E58

Controlling As-Inspected Normal Ratings (See Note f) E82 E53 E72 E79 E92 E67 E69 E69 E62 - E60 E70 E65 E77 E76 E48 E146 E73 E61 E76 E56 E115 E58

Maximum Ratings

End of Member 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

End of Member 2 - - E99 E164 E194 - E86 E133 E132 - E151 E179 - - E147 E133 E269 - E118 - - - E119

End of Member 3 - E100 E139 - E456 E132 E129 E129 - - E117 - - E146 E148 E642 E519 E140 E120 E144 E111 E293 E507

End of Member 4 E146 - E137 E170 E506 E128 - - E251 - E80 - E133 - E148 E96 E338 E141 - - E135 E216 E119

End of Member 5 E138 - - - - - - - - - - - E115 - - - - - - - - - -

Horizontal Shear E202 - E465 E231 E301 E310 E215 E214 E233 - E113 E3106 E207 - E672 E186 E495 E303 E286 E253 E445 E493 E713

Vertical Shear - E193 E180 E211 E265 E184 E165 E251 E161 - *E129 E444 - E225 E221 E153 E312 E308 E279 E286 *E135 E300 E356

Overall Splice (See Note g) - - - - E98 - - - E86 - E109 E143 - - - - - - - - E79 - E57

Controlling As-Inspected Max Ratings (See Note f) E138 E100 E99 E164 E98 E128 E86 E129 E86 - E80 E143 E115 E146 E147 E96 E269 E140 E118 E144 E79 E216 E57

(f)The ratings of the individual splice components were not considered when determining the controlling ratings.

(g)The capacity of the overall splice is taken as the sum of the capacities of all of its components.

*Splice plate area was utilized in the vertical shear capacity

8
Double Track, Speed = 15mph Span 2B: 260’-3” Swing Span Span 1,3,4 & 5: 174’-0” Fixed Truss Span

L0 L1,L3,L5,L7 L2,L6 L4 L8 M1,M7 M3 M5 U2 U4 U6 U8 L0 L1,L3,L5 L2 L4 L6 M1 M3 M5 U2 U4 U6

Methodology (ASR) ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR ASR

AS-BUILT E-RATINGS

Normal Ratings

End of Member 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

End of Member 2 - - E89 E97 E110 - E91 E91 E81 - E76 E78 - - E89 E77 E160 - E71 - - - E120

End of Member 3 - E61 E86 E515 E273 E82 E80 E80 - E208 E80 - - E90 E88 E180 E326 E88 E74 E89 E64 E168 E318

End of Member 4 E99 - E95 E86 E119 E88 - - E152 - E84 E106 E72 - E91 E52 E212 E86 - - E72 E126 E68

End of Member 5 E121 - - - - - - - - - - - E86 - - - - - - - - - -

Horizontal Shear E143 - E460 E137 E186 E233 E143 E144 E153 - E72 E1513 E124 - E550 E112 E317 E205 E195 E169 E278 E311 E456

Vertical Shear - E127 E124 E107 E170 E125 E168 E169 E106 E567 *E79 E285 - E152 E149 E110 E201 E209 E189 E192 *E81 E224 E233

Overall Splice (See Note g) - - - - E101 - - - E76 - E84 E105 - - - - - - - - E61 - E63

Controlling As-Built Normal Ratings (See Note f) E99 E61 E86 E86 E101 E82 E80 E80 E76 E208 E72 E78 E72 E90 E88 E52 E160 E86 E71 E89 E61 E126 E63

Maximum Ratings

End of Member 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

End of Member 2 - - E168 E196 E229 - E173 E172 E156 - E166 E198 - - E172 E146 E295 - E138 - - - E206

End of Member 3 - E115 E166 E936 E563 E155 E150 E151 - E379 E156 - - E171 E171 E1129 E598 E163 E141 E169 E128 E1069 E584

End of Member 4 E180 - E180 E185 E216 E168 - - E296 - E97 E193 E146 - E173 E363 E370 E165 - - E147 E237 E130

End of Member 5 E148 - - - - - - - - - - - E122 - - - - - - - - - -

Horizontal Shear E249 - E789 E261 E367 E406 E250 E251 E276 - E134 E2594 E226 - E944 E284 E542 E354 E335 E297 E487 E539 E781

Vertical Shear - E222 E219 E204 E313 E217 E292 E294 E186 E972 *E159 E491 - E267 E262 E172 E348 E360 E326 E335 *E151 E329 E400

Overall Splice (See Note g) - - - - E105 - - - E106 - E132 E157 - - - - - - - - E87 - E63

Controlling As-Built Max Ratings (See Note f) E148 E115 E166 E185 E105 E155 E150 E151 E106 E379 E97 E157 E122 E171 E171 E146 E295 E163 E138 E169 E87 E237 E63

AS-INSPECTED E-RATINGS

Normal Ratings

End of Member 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

End of Member 2 - - E89 E97 E110 - E91 E91 E81 - E76 E78 - - E89 E77 E160 - E71 - - - E120

End of Member 3 - E61 E86 E515 E273 E82 E80 E80 - E208 E80 - - E90 E88 E180 E326 E88 E74 E89 E64 E168 E318

End of Member 4 E99 - E95 E86 E119 E88 - - E152 - E84 E106 E72 - E91 E52 E212 E86 - - E72 E126 E68

End of Member 5 E121 - - - - - - - - - - - E86 - - - - - - - - - -

Horizontal Shear E143 - E460 E137 E186 E233 E143 E144 E153 - E72 E1513 E124 - E458 E112 E317 E205 E195 E169 E278 E311 E456

Vertical Shear - E127 E122 E104 E170 E125 E168 E169 E106 E567 *E79 E285 - E150 E144 E107 E201 E209 E189 E192 *E81 E224 E233

Overall Splice (See Note g) - - - - E101 - - - E76 - E84 E105 - - - - - - - - E61 - E63

Controlling As-Inspected Normal Ratings (See Note f) E99 E61 E86 E86 E101 E82 E80 E80 E76 E208 E72 E78 E72 E90 E88 E52 E160 E86 E71 E89 E61 E126 E63

Maximum Ratings

End of Member 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

End of Member 2 - - E168 E196 E229 - E173 E172 E156 - E166 E198 - - E172 E146 E295 - E138 - - - E206

End of Member 3 - E115 E166 E936 E563 E155 E150 E151 - E379 E156 - - E171 E171 E1129 E598 E163 E141 E169 E128 E1069 E584

End of Member 4 E180 - E180 E185 E216 E168 - - E296 - E97 E193 E146 - E173 E363 E370 E165 - - E147 E237 E130

End of Member 5 E148 - - - - - - - - - - - E122 - - - - - - - - - -

Horizontal Shear E249 - E789 E261 E367 E406 E250 E251 E276 - E134 E2594 E226 - E786 E284 E542 E354 E335 E297 E487 E539 E781

Vertical Shear - E222 E214 E199 E313 E217 E292 E294 E186 E972 *E159 E491 - E263 E255 E168 E348 E360 E326 E335 *E151 E329 E400

Overall Splice (See Note g) - - - - E105 - - - E106 - E132 E157 - - - - - - - - E87 - E63

Controlling As-Inspected Max Ratings (See Note f) E148 E115 E166 E185 E105 E155 E150 E151 E106 E379 E97 E157 E122 E171 E171 E146 E106 E146 E106 E295 E370 E163 E138

(f)The ratings of the individual splice components were not considered when determining the controlling ratings. 

(g)The capacity of the overall splice is taken as the sum of the capacities of all of its components. 

*Splice plate area was utilized in the vertical shear capacity 

9


Revised 1/25/2017 2:54:00 PM 

Figure 1 – Variables Required for Whitmore Section on Diagonals 

Figure 2 – Variables Required for Whitmore Section at Vertical 

Note: Variables for bottom chord joints are mirrored about the horizontal axis from the figures 

shown above. Members are numbered from left to right, regardless of the joint orientation. 

12
Revised 1/25/2017 2:54:00 PM 

Figure 3 – Variables Required for Whitmore Section on Chords 

Figure 4 – Variables Required for Evaluation of Block Shear Resistance 

Note: Variables for bottom chord joints are mirrored about the horizontal axis from the figures 

shown above. Members are numbered from left to right, regardless of the joint orientation. 

13
Revised 1/25/2017 2:54:00 PM 

Figure 5 – Variables Required for Evaluation of Shear Resistance 

Figure 6 – Variables Required for Evaluation of Partial Shear Resistance 

Note: Variables for bottom chord joints are mirrored about the horizontal axis from the figures 

shown above. Members are numbered from left to right, regardless of the joint orientation. 

14
Revised 1/25/2017 2:54:00 PM 

Figure 7 – Variables Required for Evaluation of Chord Splice Capacity 

Figure 8 – Variables Required for General Geometry 

Note: Variables for bottom chord joints are mirrored about the horizontal axis from the figures 

shown above. Members are numbered from left to right, regardless of the joint orientation. 

15
ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE NUMBER 

01/25/01

REVISED DATE EP4003

8/19/11

RECOMMENDED by DATE PAGE 

Charles Yordy 8/19/11 1

APPROVED by DEPUTY 

CHIEF ENGR. STRUCTURES DATE OF 

TITLE 

BRIDGE LOAD RATING POLICY

James Richter 8/19/11 5

SCOPE AND NATURE 

In order to assure uniformity in the analysis of Amtrak bridges as to their ability to carry the 

imposed loads in accordance with 49 CFR 237, the following policy shall apply to all load 

ratings analyses of Amtrak-owned and Amtrak-maintained bridges. 

SPECIAL REFERENCE 

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) manual, 

Chapter 15, Steel Structures, Section 7, Existing Bridges. 

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) manual, 

Chapter 8, Concrete Structures, Part 19, Rules for Rating Existing Concrete Structures. 

Equipment diagrams are available upon request through Amtrak Engineering Structures. 

SPECIAL MATERIALS 

Special bridge rating software tools are available from the Engineering Structures 

Department. 

PROCEDURE

1. Rating shall be performed on the as-built and as-inspected conditions, using Cooper Eseries load distribution, following AREMA 15-7 or 8-19, as applicable, cited above. 

2. QUALITY CONTROL: All rating calculations shall be independently checked. 

3. IMPACT. For impact determination, 60 mph train speed shall be used. 

4. CENTRIFUGAL FORCE: For centrifugal force determination, the force shall be calculated 

for maximum freight train line speed, and for maximum passenger train speed, allowed on 

the specific curve. 

5. CAPACITY DETERMINATION: Adequacy of individual members shall be determined by 

rating of each member, and comparing that rating to Cooper E equivalent loading produced 

by the design equipment in use on the line. 

a. Ratings shall be performed at each critical section of members with varying 

section properties. For riveted or bolted cover plates that were originally designed 

and fabricated per standard practices of the era of construction, to establish analysis 

uniformity, the critical section may be considered to be one-half the distance 

between the first row of rivets at the end of the cover plate and the last row of rivets 

that develops the strength of the cover plate based on AREMA but not less than 

three lines of rivets from the end of the cover plate. 
ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE 

01/25/01

REVISED DATE 

8/19/11

NUMBER

EP4003

TITLE 

BRIDGE LOAD RATING POLICY 

 PAGE 

2 OF 5

b. “Normal” ratings shall be determined using passenger train loadings. Design 

passenger train loading shall be two HHP-8 Electric Locomotives with trailing load, in 

electrified, 12,500 volt - 25 cycle and 25,000 Volt – 60 cycle territories. In other 

territory, passenger train loading shall be two P-42 Diesel Locomotives with trailing 

load.

c. “Maximum” Loading shall be determined using freight service. Design freight train 

loading shall be “Freight Heavy Load”, consisting of two SD60 locomotives followed 

by a train of 286,000 pound cars. When analyzing girders carrying multiple tracks, 

load the near track with freight train and the adjacent track with passenger trains. 

d. Cooper E-equivalent loading charts for the four sets of equipment above are 

attached to this Engineering Practice. 

e. A structure shall be considered of sufficient capacity if, for each member, Cooper 

E-equivalent equipment load demand, for normal rating and maximum rating, does 

not exceed the computed capacity. Otherwise, further analysis and/or speed 

restrictions may be required to permit continued train operations. 

6. SUBSTRUCTURES: When a structure modification results in a significant change in the 

dead load to piers or abutments, a substructure analysis shall be performed. 

7. FATIGUE: The AREMA fatigue rating procedures shall be applied, using the following 

definition of Fracture Critical Member. “Tension members or tension components of 

members without multiple load paths (i.e., non-redundant load path), where a single fracture 

in a member or component will lead to structure collapse, or to inability of the bridge to 

perform its design function (i.e., result in potential train derailment).” If the fatigue results in 

further restriction to the normal and/or maximum rating, the judgment of the Deputy Chief 

Engineer Structures, or of his designee, is required, to determine if a higher fatigue category 

should be used, and/or how the results of the fatigue rating will be applied. 

REPORTING 

Not Applicable 

RESPONSIBILITY 

Design/ Analysis Railroad Bridge Engineer Comply 

Principal Engineer Structures Inspection Assure compliance 

Director of Structures Design Assure compliance 

Sr. Director Structures Maintenance & Inspection Assure compliance 

Deputy Chief Engineer Structures Assure compliance 

NOTE: LOAD RATING COOPER-E EQUIVALENT TABLES FOLLOW.
ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE 

01/25/01

REVISED DATE 

8/19/11

NUMBER

EP4003

TITLE 

BRIDGE LOAD RATING POLICY 

 PAGE 

3 OF 5

Freight Heavy Load: 2 locomotives SD60 and Train of 286-kip Cars 

Cooper E Equivalents for use with “maximum” rating

SPAN BENDING END SHEAR FLOOR BEAM REACTION 

Feet Kip-Feet Cooper E Kips Cooper E Kips Cooper E 

8 143 71.5 94 68.3 94 53.6 

10 188 66.8 104 69.1 118 59.0 

12 255 63.7 110 63.0 134 57.5 

13 289 60.8 113 61.1 140 57.0 

14 323 58.8 117 60.9 148 56.8 

15 358 57.2 124 62.0 157 57.5 

16 392 56.0 130 61.0 165 58.1 

18 485 57.0 139 59.6 179 58.9 

20 592 57.4 150 60.1 189 57.8 

25 868 56.9 177 62.7 215 56.8 

30 1,218 59.3 195 62.0 236 54.7 

35 1,570 60.0 208 60.2 252 51.7 

40 1,923 58.7 221 58.6 271 50.3 

45 2,278 56.9 234 57.4 299 50.4 

50 2,687 56.5 245 56.2 332 51.6 

60 3,541 54.5 274 55.9 403 52.6 

70 4,462 52.3 313 56.7 469 53.0 

80 5,451 50.5 346 55.7 525 52.8 

90 6,847 51.3 376 54.7 585 53.6 

100 8,405 52.2 403 53.8 652 55.0 

120 12,125 52.6 473 54.5 783 57.6 

140 16,423 53.0 533 54.4 906 59.0 
ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE 

01/25/01

REVISED DATE 

8/19/11

NUMBER

EP4003

TITLE 

BRIDGE LOAD RATING POLICY 

 PAGE 

4 OF 5

Amtrak: 2 HHP-8 Electric Locomotives and Train of 6 Horizon Fleet Coach Cars 

Cooper E Equivalents for use with “normal” rating in 12.5-kV, 25-cycle electrified territory

SPAN BENDING END SHEAR FLOOR BEAM REACTION 

Feet Kip-Feet Cooper E Kips Cooper E Kips Cooper E 

8 111 55.5 56 40.4 56 31.7 

10 139 49.3 59 39.4 59 29.6 

12 167 41.6 68 38.7 68 29.1 

13 180 38.0 71 38.5 71 28.9 

14 194 35.3 74 38.4 74 28.4 

15 208 33.3 76 38.2 76 28.0 

16 223 31.8 79 37.0 79 27.6 

18 274 32.2 82 35.2 82 27.1 

20 326 31.6 85 34.0 87 26.4 

25 459 30.1 90 31.9 100 26.4 

30 593 28.9 95 30.2 111 25.7 

35 729 27.9 104 30.1 127 26.0 

40 866 26.4 113 29.9 145 26.9 

45 1,053 26.3 125 30.6 160 27.0 

50 1,260 26.5 135 30.9 178 27.6 

60 1,763 27.1 149 30.4 207 27.0 

70 2,304 27.0 163 29.5 239 27.0 

80 2,904 26.9 181 29.2 271 27.3 

90 3,644 27.3 198 28.9 297 27.1 

100 4,473 27.8 213 28.4 317 26.7 

120 6,219 27.0 242 27.9 348 25.5 

140 8,404 27.1 272 27.7 375 24.4 
ORIGINAL ISSUE DATE 

01/25/01

REVISED DATE 

8/19/11

NUMBER

EP4003

TITLE 

BRIDGE LOAD RATING POLICY 

 PAGE 

5 OF 5

Amtrak: 2 P-42 Diesel Locomotives and Train of 6 Horizon Fleet Coach Cars 

Cooper E Equivalents for use with “normal” rating in other than 12.5-kV, 25-cycle electrified territory

SPAN BENDING END SHEAR FLOOR BEAM REACTION 

Feet Kip-Feet Cooper E Kips Cooper E Kips Cooper E 

8 134 67.2 67 48.8 67 38.4 

10 168 59.7 74 49.1 74 36.9 

12 201 50.4 84 47.9 84 35.9 

13 218 46.0 88 47.5 88 35.6 

14 235 42.7 91 47.2 91 34.9 

15 252 40.3 94 47.0 94 34.4 

16 277 39.6 96 45.4 96 33.9 

18 339 39.9 101 43.1 105 34.7 

20 403 39.1 104 41.6 115 35.1 

25 564 37.0 110 39.0 132 35.0 

30 727 35.4 124 39.2 153 35.5 

35 907 34.7 135 39.1 170 34.8 

40 1,157 35.3 152 40.3 182 33.7 

45 1,408 35.2 165 40.3 194 32.8 

50 1,721 36.2 175 40.2 208 32.4 

60 2,377 36.6 191 38.9 238 31.1 

70 3,037 35.6 203 36.7 273 30.8 

80 3,700 34.3 221 35.6 310 31.2 

90 4,376 32.8 241 35.2 342 31.3 

100 5,245 32.6 259 34.5 367 30.9 

120 7,241 31.4 291 33.6 405 29.7 

140 9,605 31.0 315 32.1 434 28.3