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