North America

Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads

© TTCI/AAR,04/22/2023. HALERC, p1

North American Research and Technology Overview

Semih KalaySr. Vice President

Technology

© TTCI/AAR,04/22/2023, HALERC p2

® North American Railway Industry Technology Development Goals

• Technology Driven Safety Improvements;• Reductions in train accidents• Reductions in:

• rail-highway crossing accidents• trespasser incidents• employee casualty rate• probability of hazmat releases

• Technology Driven Productivity Improvements•Asset utilization improvements: increases in ton-miles/mile of

track owned•Productivity improvements: increased revenue ton-miles per

constant $ of operating expense•Continued reductions in revenue ton-miles per gallon of fuel•Continued reductions in NOx and particulates from operations


® AAR Strategic Research Program• New technologies under development

• Fatigue and wear resistant rail steels and rail welding• Improved track substructure (ballast and formation)• Advanced special trackwork designs and materials• Bridge life extension strategies and advanced designs• Improved strength sleeper systems• Laser-based rail flaw inspection and phased arrays• Machine vision inspection of track• Machine vision inspection and automated freight car

condition monitoring & preventive maintenance• Integrated truck suspension designs• Improved car component designs and materials• Fatigue and wear resistant wheel steels• Improved brake systems• Wheel/rail interface management• Development of a new wheel and rail profiles


® Facility for Accelerated Service Testing• FAST/Heavy Axle Load Implementation:

• Test and evaluate new and untried• components before they are• implemented in revenue service• Mitigate adverse effects of HAL

• HAL Operations• 16,000-tonne train with 105 cars• Newer and more fuel efficient locomotives (3 SD70 locos)• Unmanned operations under computer control• Accumulated 164 MGT in 2012


®

Relative wear and fatigue performance:• No internal defects to date• Wear performance superior to

earlier rail steels• Rail failure mode has changed• More rail base breaks • Rolling Contact Fatigue has become the major problem with higher hardness rail steels

FAST Rail Performance Testing

Light Medium

Severe Extreme

0306090

120150180210240270300

ERM

S

TATA

STEE

L

NIP

PON

JFE-

A

JFE-

B

MIT

TAL

PG4

VAS-

1

VAS-

2

400N

EXT

Rail

Wea

r [m

m2 ]

Rail Type

Average High Rail Wear Area29 MGMT55 MGMT81 MGMT128 MGMT182 MGMT242 MGMT271 MGMT310 MGMT348 MGMT

• ERMS (USA) – 1 grade: OCP• Tata Steel (France) – 1 grade: MHH HE (HH)• Nippon (Japan) – 1 grade: HEX (control rail)• JFE (Japan) – 2 grades: JFE-A (SP2), JFE-B

(SP3)• Mittal (USA) – 1 grade: HC• Panzhihua (China) – PG4 (head hardened)• Voestalpine (Austria) – 3 grades: VAS-1,• VAS-2, 400NEXT


® Improved Rail Welding Methods

• Current practice have limitations when used on HAL lines•Rail consumption can change rail neutral temperature and

require extra work•Thermite welds can have lives shorter than parent rail

• Implementation of Heat Affected Zone (HAZ), the weakest part of a field weld, treatments in revenue service trials of this weld life improvement technique


® Bridge Research

• Advanced designs and materials also being developed and used

• Hybrid compositeconcrete spans

• Light-weight tied-arch• 2nd gen successfully• tested at FAST• Will install in

revenue service

• Older bridges• Many bridges over 50 years old• Focus on bridge life extension

• Selective member replacement• More effective repairs• Science based inspection and fatigue life estimates


® Improved Track Substructure for HAL

•Ballast test at UP western mega site • Quantify breakdown of ballast types under HAL traffic• Relate ballast condition to strength and deformation characteristics from

triaxial lab tests• Use data for improved maintenance guidelines

Axial strain

Repeated axial stress (deviator stress)

Plastic strain


® Improved Track Components• Improved strength “Half-frame” sleepers• Features

• Tabs provide:• Larger vertical footprint• Larger end footprint

• Integral bottom of tie pads• Five-fold decrease in surfacing


® Improved Special Track Work Designs

• Specialness of special trackwork• Often involves more than one track• Surface discontinuities• Change in track stiffness/structure

• A continuous running surface turnout•Vertical switch•Lift frog


® Next generation Insulated Rail Joints• Insulated & mechanical joints typically weaker than rail• Revenue Service testing of next generation designs

•Eighty two prototype IJ are in RS

Center liner

IJ SystemKeyed JointLap joint

Durable adhesive and surface treatment


®

Onboard Track InspectionLaser-based rail inspection

Carriage

Inspection box

Stepper MotorsTD TD

VSH

VSH

URail Inspection Box

Transducer Mounts


® Phased Array Rail Flaw Detection

• Phased Array System and Roller Search Unit (RSU)

32 Element Linear Array Transducers inside the RSU

© TTCI/AAR, 04/22/2023, RTWC p14

®Automated Inspection of Track

Automated Switch Inspection Systems● Hyrail laser and camera system – inspects rail portions of turnouts● Reported gage-related defect and some, but not all, running

surface conditions present● Gage calibration problem● Post-processing required before inspection report was issued

Frog flangeway obstruction - reported Switch point gap (1/8-inch) – not reported

© TTCI/AAR, 04/22/2023, RTWC p15

® Track Structure Inspection• Poor substructure leads to geometry problems and

accelerated component failure and chronic geometry issues

• Worse with heavier axle loads• Improvements needed

•Root cause analysis: trenching and cone penetrometer tests•Automated inspection using ground penetrating radar•Significant ballast pocket problems and soft clay


® Improved Rolling Stock Components: Next Generation Freight Car Truck

• Objectives: Test & evaluate proposed OEM truck suspension designs: Loaded & empty car hunting; vertical & lateral track forces; curve resistance

• Five truck types been tested:• Truck 1: Improved wedge design, rubber pads, increased longitudinal

clearance between adapter & pedestal• Truck 2: Frame bracing, rubber pads, increased longitudinal clearance

between adapter & pedestal• Truck 3: Spring plank, polymer pads, increased longitudinal clearance

between adapter & pedestal• Truck 4: Frame bracing, rubber adapter pads increased longitudinal clearances • Truck 5: Spring plank, polymer pads


®

High Performance Wheels• Revenue service test on UP train

•Unit coal train, rebuilt with AAR M-976 trucks•3 years, 223,000 revenue service miles•41% of wheels inspected, other cars in different trains•Class C w/ Composition brake shoes worst condition

• Type 7 similar condition to Class C•Only 1 car inspected with Type 4•Removed all Type 6, SRI wheelsets

C = Class CCmp = Composition Brake ShoesTC A = Tread Conditioning Brake

Shoe Type “A” TC B = Tread Conditioning Brake

Shoe Type “B”


®Vehicle Health Monitoring Systems:Next Generation Cracked Wheel Detection Systems

♦ Ultrasonic Inspection System●Cooperative agreement signed with Sheenline/Tycho and

Chinese Academy of Railway Science (CARS)●Sensor array inside a gage-widened track segment●Liquid required for UT sensor coupling to wheel●No robotics

© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2012, Filename p19

®Rolling Stock Health Monitoring• Automated Inspection of Structural Components

• Missing/Loose coupler pin/draft gear carrier fasteners• Brake Beam/Brake Rigging condition• Broken/Cracked/Bent side and/or center sill• Bogie condition/springs, wedge rise, etc.

© TTCI/AAR, 04/22/2023, p20

® North American Railroad Safety and Productivity Improvements

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

'80 '83 '85 '87 '89 '91 '93 '95 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11Source: Federal Railroad Administration

Chart 4: U.S. Rail Accident & Employee Casualty Rates

Casualties Per 200,000 Rail Employee-Hours: Down

84% 1980-2011

Train Accidents Per Million Train-Miles:

Down 76% 1980-2011

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2040p

2010

Chart 3: Demand For Freight Transportation (Billions of Tons Transported in U.S.)

p - projected Source: FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations

The U.S. DOT projects a 50%

increase in U.S. freight demand by

2040.

18.3 bil

27.5 bil

02468

101214161820222426283032

'81 '83 '85 '87 '89 '91 '93 '95 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11

Chart 1: Gross Ton-Kilometers Per Kilometer of RR(Millions)

*Including weight of wagons. Data are for U.S. Class I railroads. Source: AAR

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

2,400

2,600

2,800

3,000

3,200

3,400

'81 '83 '85 '87 '89 '91 '93 '95 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11

Chart 2: Average Freight Train Load(Tonnes)

Data are for U.S. Class I railroads. Source: AAR

The average freight train carried a near-record 3,209 tonnes of freight in

2011, up 59 percent since 1980.

© TTCI/AAR, 04/22/2023, p21

® Safety: Reduce Mainline Derailments / Train Mile by 50%

© TTCI/AAR, 04/22/2023, p22

®

http://www.csx.com/

Documents

North America