Configuration Management (CM) has been traced back to the early 1950s where the principles were first applied as change management for computer hardware. CM was later expanded to early software development which has continued to the modern age. While the mantra has not changed in 60+ years — to define and manage change — updated techniques have streamlined the process making it easier to implement and more responsive in utilization in order to keep pace with changes for both micro (software) and macro (large-scale infrastructure project) applications. In order to advance the state of good repair (SGR) for rail and transit assets in the United States, CM has become an essential tool and must coordinate with Project Integration and Asset Management so that an organized process for change control with accurate record keeping can be established and maintained long term. The importance of CM has also been mandated at the Federal level for rail assets under 49 CFR 236. To bring wider understanding of CM to the industry, this paper will present Configuration Management and Project Integration techniques as applied to rail transportation infrastructure including assets that must meet Federal regulations, and it will discuss the coordination between CM, Integration and Asset Management under the SGR initiative. This is the final paper in a series that began in 2012, presented at the Joint Rail Conferences, and featured Denver Transit Partners (DTP) and the Denver Eagle P3.

In November, 2005 before an assembly of rail transit managers and engineers, keynote speaker Tom Prendergast — then Vice President, Parsons Brinckerhoff T&RS — declared that the next frontier of railway engineering would be not in the “Big Four” engineering disciplines of Civil, Mechanical, Electrical or even Computer Engineering, but in “Integration Engineering.” Years have passed and while Tom’s words have not yet been fully realized by the transit industry, change is happening. Today, railway construction projects that have had major construction issues include the now beleaguered Edinburgh, Scotland “Edinburgh Tram” and the recently opened Hampton Roads Transit “Tide” Light Rail. Both projects have suffered from major cost overruns, work stoppages and legal entanglements, much of which can be attributed to a lack of scope clarity, especially utility identification & interfaces, and utility relocations. The lack of coordination for both projects can be traced back to the preliminary engineering level and continued, unchecked through final design and into construction where the lack of coordination and planning was realized too late. [1,2] Given the complexities of modern railway systems and the well-developed urban and suburban infrastructure where they are typically built, proper integration engineering is essential from the earliest phases of a project and should be carried through to the start of revenue operations and maintenance. There are however, examples of recently completed railway projects that have addressed project integration engineering successfully, finishing ahead of schedule, ahead of budget, or both. This paper is a continuation in a short series of presentations and papers that will address Railway Project Integration Engineering as a topic and recommend the integration tasks deemed critical to a successful project. The primary subject matter will be the Denver Eagle P3 — the first rail transit Public Private Partnership (P3) in the United States that has recently completed final design and is currently under construction. The materials and techniques to be presented are relatively new, and have already been used successfully in Europe. Should they prove successful with the Eagle P3, this could lower both cost and risk for future North American rail projects. This first paper will discuss the topic, review modeling techniques that were used to define the project integration process, and will capture the results of final design integration with both successes and difficulties. This paper will also cover the early stages of the Eagle P3 project construction, tie into the model, and attempt to project likely results when construction concludes and testing begins with the ultimate goal of meeting an ambitious schedule and budget when operations commence in January, 2016.

Long the iconic transportation symbol of Seattle, the monorail system was constructed for the 1962 World’s Fair. Seattle’s monorail vehicles were the last and most technically advanced vehicles designed and built by the firm of Alweg-Forschung, GmbH (Alweg) of Cologne, Germany. The primary train operating systems and components were supplied by major US transit system equipment vendors of that era, including G.E., WABCO, and Rockwell. The two, 4-car train’s original layout and function generally conformed to US transit rail equipment standards and design practices of the early 1960s. However, during 45-years of near-continuous, revenue operation that included upgrades, piecemeal refurbishment projects and accident/incident repairs, many changes were made to the original design with varying levels of success and documentation. In 2007, a small team of Seattle Monorail staff and consultants identified the vehicle systems and components that were most urgently in need of replacement or overhaul given the limited funding and time available for completion of design work, preparation of contractor bid documentation and construction. Project funding was primarily via a grant from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), supplemented by the City of Seattle. The historical significance of the Seattle Monorail was at the center of the refurbishment program, with great care in functional design, aesthetics and construction being exercised throughout the program until completion in 2010. The modernization included the installation and integration of: communications-based train control; programmable logic controllers (PLC’s) for auxiliary systems; redundancy and interlocking of key safety-related components; streamlined controls that lead to significant weight savings and increased reliability; modern components to address ADA compliance; and ergonomic Driver Cabs. This report discusses the Seattle Center Monorail Refurbishment Program given the unique opportunity to modernize two historic pieces of transportation rolling stock that is anticipated to run in revenue service for the next 45 years.

December 27, 2008 marked the grand opening of METRO Light Rail transit service linking the cities of Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa, Arizona. In Phoenix, this event harkened back to an era with similar streetcar service that ceased operations in 1948. After a 55 year absence, final design of the modern system commenced in 2003, and the acute need to address safety concerns with a new generation of valley residents began. This 20.4 mile (32.6 km) system contains 28 stations, runs on reserved rights of way, >95% in city streets, and contains over 149 street traffic intersections, highway ramps and slip-ramps. In an effort to lessen injuries and damage to the public, train crew and light rail equipment, the Agency’s consultant recommended several key changes to the typical North American light rail system design. Included was an unprecedented change to the front end of the light rail vehicles with an industry first, crash energy management (CEM) bumper. This report discusses the design and functionality of the Phoenix LRV front end and bumper from concept through revenue service.

In 2007–08, a study of passenger side entrance door types and integration with overall car design was conducted by Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) for a client in the State of California. As found on many other intercity and commuter operations in North America, the client had for years endured a variety of technical challenges with the side entrance doors that had compromised passenger service and safety. Recent advances in side entrance door designs and the subsequent changes to new car specifications have opened the door to solutions to many of these challenges; solutions include hardware changes to the door panels and assemblies, and intelligent systems included in software and sensors of the door control for monitoring and diagnosing door settings, operations and faults in real time. Through field inspections and equipment evaluations, this study determined that the majority of the faults were caused by contamination. A principle solution to eliminating this contamination was determined to be in the door seals and subsequent door panel type. Among the recommendations made to the client were to change from a bi-parting pocket sliding door system to a bi-parting sliding plug door system. This paper presents two portions of the PB study: 1) an overview of the technical challenges of operating intercity and commuter rail passenger service in California, and 2) an industry study that identifies the latest in appropriate technologies for service in California. Modern rail passenger cars with similar service and bi-parting pocket sliding doors are evaluated. This paper also discusses how the findings in California can be applied to other commuter, heavy and light rail transit operations in North America.