Trn Tc0609 Ttci Preview
1
TECHNOLOGY www.TrainsMag.com 17 The average U.S. citizen likely still thinks dieselization was the only significant technological advance in railroading; mean- while, educated observers see change, albeit usually slow and plodding. Today, even “change” is changing. Progress in several scientific disciplines, the continual need for improvement, and several horrific wrecks have converged to herald an era of revolu- tionary as well as evolutionary change. But, as is the case in all revolutions, change will not be easy: Several significant challenges remain and must be overcome. e September 2008 Metrolink wreck in Chatsworth, Calif., that killed 25 people prompted a federal mandate to implement positive train control systems nationwide by Dec. 31, 2015. But PTC isn’t ready. Yes, the systems can and will stop a train short of a target (control point, switch, etc.) but a vari- ety of factors (weight, grade, humidity, leaves on the tracks, and more) make it difficult to accurately predict the correct stopping dis- tance, which might cause the systems to stop trains a half-mile or more early. “At Transportation Technology Center Inc., we have two Federal Railroad Adminis- tration-funded projects underway that have developed some very promising solutions to the problem,” says Alan Polivka, TTCI assis- tant vice president, communications and train control. “ey must undergo further analysis, simulation, and testing before they’ll be ready for prime time, however.” But that’s not the only challenge engi- neers need to resolve. Technology can dis- cern which track a train is on once it starts moving, but it can’t when the system is first acquiring the satellite link in multiple-track territory. So it relies on human input, which can introduce errors. “ere are potential solutions, but they remain to be developed,” Polivka says. TTCI has an Federal Railroad Administration-funded contract to develop one of those approaches using a high-accu- racy form of differential GPS. Further, sometimes PTC systems don’t receive key messages over the radio due to interference or several other factors. In these cases, the system can stop a train where no hazard ex- ists. ese conditions could conspire to slow overall train velocities. During the next six years, Trains will follow these challenges as PTC nears implementation. Train control was one of many emerging technologies discussed in Pueblo, Colo., at TTCI’s 14 th Annual Research Re- view and the Joint Rail Confer- ence hosted by associations for mechanical, electrical, and civil engineers in March. Tank car design is another hot issue. FRA, on Jan. 13, 2009, is- sued its final rule on improving tank car safety. Make that its fi- nal rule on an interim tank car design. On April 1, 2008, FRA had issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, in part as a response to hazardous materials releases in train wrecks in Minot, N.D., and Graniteville, S.C. Chemical companies, railroads, tank car manufacturers, politicians, the general public, and a host of oth- er interested parties responded quickly. Many believed the pro- posed rule had several problems, including imposing different speed limits for signaled (50 mph) and dark (30 mph) territory, and a mandate to design and manufacture tank cars with puncture-resis- tant shells capable of withstanding impact at 25 mph and a tank-head puncture sys- tem capable of withstanding impact at 30 mph. e proposed puncture-resistance standards would represent an increase in stringency of six and 10 times the current impact standards. In its rule-making notice, FRA also pro- posed that the 150,000 tank cars used in hazmat service in the U.S. be replaced in eight years aſter the final rule’s publication: Car builders would have two years to de- sign, model, test, and build the new tank cars, then shippers would have to replace half their fleet in the next three years, and the remainder in the remaining three years. Con- sidering that in 2006 the average cost of a new tank car of a stan- dard existing design was about $81,000, replacing these tank cars with yet-to-be-designed models would exceed $12 billion. is alone could be enough of a hin- drance to force hazmat shipping to the highways. e final rule addressed some of these concerns. For example, the U.S. Department of Trans- porttion did not adopt the 30- mph speed limit for dark territo- ry, and is not forcing technology with the significantly more strin- gent designs — for now. Rather, this rule specifies interim designs, BY KATHI KUBE From evolution to revolution Railroad engineering advances, challenges portend a wild ride Alan Polivka. TTCI Nick Wilson. TTCI The sun will be setting on some tank car designs as the government and industry work to improve safety. TRAINS: Kathi Kube and does not mandate a specific deadline. Cars made between now and the final final rule will be grandfathered under the new specifications for 20 years, although some existing tank cars must be prioritized for discontinuance. Trains will discuss tank car designs in greater depth next month. Meanwhile, less controversial technolo- gies are likely to show up on railroads soon, including new designs for commuter cab cars. Several wrecks over the past 30 years involving cab cars and electric M.U. cars have resulted in fatalities when the corner posts were breached. On June 18, 1998, a two-car South Shore Line M.U. commuter train collided with a tractor-trailer truck at a grade crossing in Portage, Ind. A 19-ton steel coil broke loose and penetrated the lead car, killing three people. Michelle Müh- langer, Patricia Llana, and David Tyrell, all of the Volpe National Transportation Sys- tems Center, designed and tested a state-of- the-art corner post that was able to absorb about 137,000 foot-pounds of energy yet deform only 7.5 inches, thereby preserving a safe area for operators and passengers. FRA is using the test results in support of a new crashworthiness rule that Mühlanger ex- pects to be released later this year. Standard wheel profiles are also likely to change this year. Wheel profiles last changed in the mid-1980s. Since that time, railroads have begun running heavier railcars, and ad- justed their rail grinding and lubricating practices. “One small change might not make a difference, but if enough add up, it creates a new equilibrium,” says Nick Wilson, an engi- neer in vehicle dynamics at TTCI. Specifically, wheels and rails typically now have two severe contact points, which leads wheels to wear asymmetrically, can cause gauge spreading in the beginning stage of service, and oſten leads to prema- ture wear of wheels and rail. In her presentation, principal investiga- tor Huimin Wu stated that TTCI expects the Association of American Railroads to recommend an interchange rule for the new wheel profile this year. How apparent will the change be to the casual observer? “From 20 feet away, you won’t notice,” Wilson says. “But people experienced in looking at wheels will notice.” In big ways and small ways, railroad technology is changing. >> Learn more about new railroad technologies at www.TrainsMag. >> TECHNOLOGY BRIEF ENSCO’s high-speed optical joint bar inspection system combats broken or cracked rail joiners by locating 1/4- inch cracks at speeds up to 65 mph. High-speed optics detect joint bar cracks
Transcript of Trn Tc0609 Ttci Preview
TECHNOLOGY
www.TrainsMag.com 17
The average U.S. citizen likely still thinks dieselization was the only signi� cant technological advance in railroading; mean-while, educated observers see change, albeit usually slow and plodding. Today, even “change” is changing. Progress in several scienti� c disciplines, the continual need for improvement, and several horri� c wrecks have converged to herald an era of revolu-tionary as well as evolutionary change. But, as is the case in all revolutions, change will not be easy: Several signi� cant challenges remain and must be overcome.
� e September 2008 Metrolink wreck in Chatsworth, Calif., that killed 25 people prompted a federal mandate to implement positive train control systems nationwide by Dec. 31, 2015. But PTC isn’t ready. Yes, the systems can and will stop a train short of a target (control point, switch, etc.) but a vari-ety of factors (weight, grade, humidity, leaves on the tracks, and more) make it di� cult to accurately predict the correct stopping dis-tance, which might cause the systems to stop trains a half-mile or more early.
“At Transportation Technology Center Inc., we have two Federal Railroad Adminis-tration-funded projects underway that have developed some very promising solutions to the problem,” says Alan Polivka, TTCI assis-tant vice president, communications and train control. “� ey must undergo further analysis, simulation, and testing before they’ll be ready for prime time, however.”
But that’s not the only challenge engi-neers need to resolve. Technology can dis-cern which track a train is on once it starts moving, but it can’t when the system is � rst acquiring the satellite link in multiple-track
territory. So it relies on human input, which can introduce errors. “� ere are potential solutions, but they remain to be developed,” Polivka says. TTCI has an Federal Railroad Administration-funded contract to develop one of those approaches using a high-accu-racy form of di� erential GPS. Further, sometimes PTC systems don’t receive key messages over the radio due to interference or several other factors. In these cases, the system can stop a train where no hazard ex-ists. � ese conditions could conspire to slow overall train velocities. During the next six years, Trains will follow these challenges as PTC nears implementation.
Train control was one of many emerging technologies discussed in Pueblo, Colo., at TTCI’s 14th Annual Research Re-view and the Joint Rail Confer-ence hosted by associations for mechanical, electrical, and civil engineers in March.
Tank car design is another hot issue. FRA, on Jan. 13, 2009, is-sued its � nal rule on improving tank car safety. Make that its � -nal rule on an interim tank car design. On April 1, 2008, FRA had issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, in part as a response to hazardous materials releases in train wrecks in Minot, N.D., and Graniteville, S.C. Chemical companies, railroads, tank car manufacturers, politicians, the general public, and a host of oth-er interested parties responded quickly. Many believed the pro-posed rule had several problems,
including imposing di� erent speed limits for signaled (50 mph) and dark (30 mph) territory, and a mandate to design and manufacture tank cars with puncture-resis-tant shells capable of withstanding impact at 25 mph and a tank-head puncture sys-tem capable of withstanding impact at 30 mph. � e proposed puncture-resistance standards would represent an increase in stringency of six and 10 times the current impact standards.
In its rule-making notice, FRA also pro-posed that the 150,000 tank cars used in hazmat service in the U.S. be replaced in eight years a� er the � nal rule’s publication: Car builders would have two years to de-sign, model, test, and build the new tank
cars, then shippers would have to replace half their � eet in the next three years, and the remainder in the remaining three years. Con-sidering that in 2006 the average cost of a new tank car of a stan-dard existing design was about $81,000, replacing these tank cars with yet-to-be-designed models would exceed $12 billion. � is alone could be enough of a hin-drance to force hazmat shipping to the highways.
� e � nal rule addressed some of these concerns. For example, the U.S. Department of Trans-porttion did not adopt the 30-mph speed limit for dark territo-ry, and is not forcing technology with the signi� cantly more strin-gent designs — for now. Rather, this rule speci� es interim designs,
BY KATHI KUBE
From evolution to revolutionRailroad engineering advances, challenges portend a wild ride
Alan Polivka. TTCI
Nick Wilson. TTCI
The sun will be setting on some tank car designs as the government and industry work to improve safety. TRAINS: Kathi Kube
and does not mandate a speci� c deadline. Cars made between now and the � nal � nal rule will be grandfathered under the new speci� cations for 20 years, although some existing tank cars must be prioritized for discontinuance. Trains will discuss tank car designs in greater depth next month.
Meanwhile, less controversial technolo-gies are likely to show up on railroads soon, including new designs for commuter cab cars. Several wrecks over the past 30 years involving cab cars and electric M.U. cars have resulted in fatalities when the corner posts were breached. On June 18, 1998, a two-car South Shore Line M.U. commuter train collided with a tractor-trailer truck at a grade crossing in Portage, Ind. A 19-ton steel coil broke loose and penetrated the lead car, killing three people. Michelle Müh-langer, Patricia Llana, and David Tyrell, all of the Volpe National Transportation Sys-tems Center, designed and tested a state-of-the-art corner post that was able to absorb about 137,000 foot-pounds of energy yet deform only 7.5 inches, thereby preserving a safe area for operators and passengers. FRA is using the test results in support of a new crashworthiness rule that Mühlanger ex-pects to be released later this year.
Standard wheel pro� les are also likely to change this year. Wheel pro� les last changed in the mid-1980s. Since that time, railroads have begun running heavier railcars, and ad-justed their rail grinding and lubricating practices. “One small change might not make a di� erence, but if enough add up, it creates a new equilibrium,” says Nick Wilson, an engi-neer in vehicle dynamics at TTCI.
Speci� cally, wheels and rails typically now have two severe contact points, which leads wheels to wear asymmetrically, can cause gauge spreading in the beginning stage of service, and o� en leads to prema-ture wear of wheels and rail.
In her presentation, principal investiga-tor Huimin Wu stated that TTCI expects the Association of American Railroads to recommend an interchange rule for the new wheel pro� le this year. How apparent will the change be to the casual observer? “From 20 feet away, you won’t notice,” Wilson says. “But people experienced in looking at wheels will notice.”
In big ways and small ways, railroad technology is changing.
>> Learn more about new railroad technologies at www.TrainsMag.
>> TECHNOLOGY BRIEF
ENSCO’s high-speed optical joint bar inspection system combats broken or cracked rail joiners by locating 1/4-inch cracks at speeds up to 65 mph.
High-speed optics detect joint bar cracks
