Railroad Track Mechanics and Technology: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at Princeton University, April 21 - 23, 1975

Railroad Track Mechanics and Technology is a collection of paper that discusses the advancement in the various areas of railroad track technology. The title’s emphasis is on tackling the concerns that revolve around the track-train interaction. The first part of the text presents the articles about general topics, which include the FRA track research program and balanced national transportation budget. Next, the selection presents the technical materials, such as railroad track structure for high-speed lines; cause and effects of wheel load variation on the high-speed operating line; and the effect of lateral loads on track movement. The book will be of great use to the engineers and technicians who work in rail way transportation industry.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Release date: Jun 28, 2014
• ISBN: 9781483188218

Book preview

GENERAL PAPERS

Outline

Chapter 1: GETTING DOWN TO BASICS

Chapter 2: THE FRA TRACK RESEARCH PROGRAM: ITS ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 3: A BALANCED NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION BUDGET — A GROWING POSSIBILITY

GETTING DOWN TO BASICS*

L. Stanley Crane,     President and Chief Administrative Officer, Southern Railway System, Washington, D.C.

Publisher Summary

This chapter reviews the basics of railroad research. The intent of railroad research is basically the same—to provide the most efficient, safe, and reliable rail system possible. Political and ownership considerations also affect approaches such research. Railroad operations outside the US, with the partial exception of Canada, are almost entirely government-owned. American railroad traffic is for the most part heavy tonnage freight business, with less emphasis on passenger service. Railroads outside America are more concerned with high-speed passenger movement and relatively low axle-load freight service. Railroad operations in the US are carried on by independent, privately owned corporations. They have tangible profit goals to be obtained and stockholder owners to answer to. Research must necessarily be compatible with this private enterprise system. That means that it is principally directed toward encouraging competition and efficiency, seeking immediate advantages rather than long-term basic knowledge. For too many years, the federal government’s attitude toward railroads in America was a mixture of infatuation with the past, interference in the present, and indifference to the future. This is beginning to change. The government is taking an increasingly helpful interest in the problems of the railroads and of transportation as a whole. The government’s growing involvement with the problems of transportation and the reorganization of bankrupt railroads has been accompanied by an increased interest by government in railroad research. This is an important development, so far as American railroads are concerned, because the situation needs more coordinated basic railroad research.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to be with you and to have at least a small part in this valuable symposium. I began my railroad career as a laboratory assistant in my company’s research laboratories and research has been one of my keener interests ever since.

It is always a treat for me to associate with people who are interested and involved in research. That is especially true of a gathering like this, bringing together as it does some of the finest minds in railroad track research from around this global world of ours.

The scope and depth of this three-day program makes it clear that we have the opportunity here to learn a great deal from one another. And the subject at hand – railroad track mechanics – indicates that what we are doing here is something we ought to be doing a lot more of in the United States.

We need to get down to basics in railroad research.

Wherever such research is carried on – here, or in Austria, Russia, Canada, France, Japan, Germany, Holland, or the United Kingdom – the intent is basically the same; to provide the most efficient, safe and reliable rail system possible. And it all starts with the track structure on which we operate.

Although we are seeking the same end, our differences in operation often tend to lead us there by different routes. Railroads outside this country are more concerned with high-speed passenger movement and relatively low axle-load freight service. American railroad traffic, on the other hand, is for the most part heavy tonnage freight business, with less emphasis on passenger service.

Political and ownership considerations also affect our approaches to research. Railroad operations outside the United States, with the partial exception of Canada, are almost entirely government-owned.

Many of these governments have made a total commitment to railroad research, with emphasis on the basics. To cite just a few examples, we have the British Railways Technical Centre at Derby, the Japanese Railways Technical Research Institute in Tokyo and the German Railways’ research facilities at Munich and Minden.

Railroad operations in this country are carried on by independent, privately-owned corporations. They have tangible profit goals to be obtained and stockholder-owners to answer to. Research must necessarily be compatible with this private enterprise system. That means that it is principally directed toward encouraging competition and efficiency, seeking immediate advantages rather than long-term basic knowledge.

Moreover, much of the railroad research in this country is carried on by companies that supply equipment to the railroads. They also tend to seek the immediate return on their efforts. Their research work is product-oriented, rather than systems-oriented.

Don’t misunderstand me. I am a great admirer of the free enterprise system. I would not care to work under any other. In fact, I often wish it were a little freer than it is in the U.S.A.

Certainly I do not want to leave you with the impression that American railroads are entirely free of the political considerations and government restraints that affect railroad operations elsewhere. That just isn’t true.

Sometimes we feel that we are operating in a shadow-land between true freedom of action and government control. Certainly many management decisions are effectively denied to us by law and regulation. Specifically I refer to pricing our service and determining which services we want to keep and which to discontinue. Our freedom of entry into other modes of transportation is severely restricted.

So we have had many of what I consider the drawbacks of government ownership without the accompanying advantage – at least until very recently – of a real government financial commitment to railroad research.

For too many years, the federal government’s attitude toward railroads in America was a mixture of infatuation with the past, interference in the present and indifference to the future.

This was a deadly combination. It had, I think, more than a little to do with compounding the troubles of the ailing Northeast railroads. In fact, it helped accelerate their slide into bankruptcy.

I don’t intend to dwell on that since it has little to do with our subject, although any research we do in the basic track structure can’t help being of value to these troubled railroads since their deteriorating track structure is one of the factors that continue to compound the predicament of these rail lines.

I am happy to say that all this is beginning to change. Government is taking an increasingly helpful interest in the problems of the railroads and of transportation as a whole.

Five years ago, the federal government acted to relieve the railroads of the burden of money-losing passenger service and turned this over for the most part to a governmental corporation – Amtrak. My own company – Southern Railway – did not choose to join the Amtrak system, but it has been a boon to many hard-pressed railroads.

Congress has now set up the U.S. Railway Association to create a workable and, we hope, eventually profitable system by streamlining and improving the bankrupt railroads of the Northeast and Midwest.

U.S.R.A.’s preliminary plan for a trim and tough 15,000-mile railroad system called Conrail seems to many of us to have real promise for resolving the difficulties that have plagued transportation in these areas. Roadbed along this basic route would be upgraded, additional equipment would be purchased, yards would be improved and the overall level of service made better.

The 6,200 miles of line that are not included in the trimmed-down system are lightly used. They generate only about 4–1/2 percent of current freight traffic levels. Even those lines would not necessarily be actually abandoned. The plan has a provision for keeping these unprofitable branch lines in operation, where they are felt to be needed, through combined federal and local subsidy. In addition, several solvent railroads have indicated an interest in acquiring some of these branches.

Southern Railway, for example, is interested in several of the Penn Central branch lines. Two of our proposed acquisitions have been recommended for inclusion in U.S.R.A.’s preliminary plan.

Government’s growing involvement with the problems of transportation and the reorganization of these bankrupt railroads has been accompanied by an increased interest by government in railroad research. And this is an important development, so far as American railroads are concerned, because we need more coordinated basic railroad research here.

My purpose in highlighting the contrast between railroad operating conditions here and in many other countries is to point out that research results obtained elsewhere cannot, in many cases, be applied here in U.S.A.

I have seen some of the basic research being carried on in other countries, particularly in West Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union. I know that in the true spirit of international cooperation – which has always been exemplified by engineers and scientists seeking the elements of new knowledge – you are gathered here to communicate and exchange this knowledge for the betterment of all railroads throughout the world.

But with the best will in the world, test results and operating experience often cannot be translated across oceans and continents because the operating conditions are so different. Let me give you one example: concrete cross ties have been used successfully in Europe for many years. You might assume that they would work in American railroad track. But this is not the case and the concrete tie has been singularly unsuccessful to date on American rails. The heavier locomotives and cars, the greater axle loads, tend to break down the ties and track fastenings in American railroading practice although I know from personal observation that they are successful in your countries.

I do not mean to imply that we do not have much to learn from one another or to overlook the very real benefits that we can and do gain from the exchange of technology.

The electric-flash butt-welding technique Southern uses to produce quarter-mile strands of continuous welded rail in its plant in Atlanta was developed in Europe. So was the technique we use for thermit welding these steel ribbons in laying the completed track.

Our R–1 Research Car, which we use to test for track geometry defects under wheel loads, was instrumented with Amsler gear from Switzerland. We added some refinements, including an on-board computer and an inertial measurement system.

And, of course, this is a two-way street.

We have had observers from Australia studying the performance of our roller bearings and heat-treated rail. South American railroad visitors have also shown great interest in heat-treated rail, as well as in our hot box detection system. A Russian delegation inspected our system of installing welded rail with mechanized track-laying and surfacing equipment. Observers from many countries have studied Southern’s classification yard operations over the years.

My point is that we cannot rely on the research work of others. We need a great deal more railroad research in this country and we need to set priorities that get us down to the basics of track structure and its interaction with rolling stock.

To some extent, America and its railroads are doing this.

The Association of American Railroads is directing a joint research project in train-track dynamics sponsored and financed by the Federal Railroad Administration of the Department of Transportation and the railroads and their suppliers. Basically we are exploring the track and equipment factors that cause derailments and, conversely, the factors that contribute to safe, reliable operation. From the studies we are developing computer models simulating operating conditions, which we hope to be able to use to validate and supplement the actual physical testing.

D.O.T. and the Federal Railroad Administration are funding research at the Illinois Technical Research institute into wheel fractures and other wheel failures. We need more government-funded programs like this to draw on the research expertise of our universities and channel it toward basic railroad track and equipment problems.

Southern Railway is helping with this wheel research through the use of the pulsating load machine at our own research laboratory in Alexandria, Virginia. Our equipment is only big enough to test track and car components

under load stresses that simulate actual operating conditions.

To build equipment that could test complete locomotives, freight cars and track sections in this manner would require more space than we have available and more millions of dollars than a single company can possibly justify putting into it.

And here we come to one of the more exciting possibilities inherent in this heightened interest by our government in railroad research. I am referring, of course, to the D.O.T.’s new test center at Pueblo, Colorado.

I say possibilities, because the value we gain from this new test facility will depend largely on how we order our priorities.

One of the equipment set-ups at the Pueblo center is a huge simulating device designed to do what I have just described – apply operating loads and stresses to entire locomotives and cars in place. And this is going to give us a great deal of useful information about equipment design and strength of materials.

But the part of the Pueblo Test Center with the greatest potential value from a track mechanics standpoint has yet to be built. That’s the proposed fatigue accelerated service test track.

This will be a nine-mile test loop where two heavy tonnage trains will be run continuously from dawn to sundown every day. In one year, or two at the most, they’ll put the equivalent of 25 years’ normal wear on the track structure.

It will be our first test track capable of continuous operation to evaluate track, track components, locomotives and cars under controlled conditions.

This development will be nothing new to our research friends in Japan and Russia to name two facilities that I have personally seen. In these countries their researchers in track mechanics have had the advantage of this type of facility for many years. It is regrettable that in the U.S.A. with all the great resources that our country has, we have not seen fit to order our priorities or to make such a facility available at a much earlier date.

When and if it is built we will be able to test concrete ties and wood ties, different rail weights, rail sections and metallurgy. We can determine the efficiency of rail defect testing cars, find where defects are most likely to occur and how fast they worsen. Ultimately, we may learn to predict the incidence of rail defects. And all of this can be done under U.S. Railway operating conditions.

In fact, most of the discussions you have heard and will hear during these three days deal with the kind of research in which such a loop track for accelerated testing – or the load and stress simulator – would be valuable.

That’s what I mean by re-ordering our priorities. We need the use of the load and stress simulator at its fullest capacity. We need to get the test track built at Pueblo and get it to work as soon as possible on the basic research we need most.

At the risk of offending my friends in D.O.T., I am going to have to make it plain that I am less interested in linear induction motors, highspeed passenger service and air cushion vehicles than I am in the basic strength and efficiency of the track and equipment we are already using. I’m going to be a lot more enthusiastic about 300-mile-an-hour trains after we have learned to operate 75-mile-an-hour trains with complete reliability in the U.S.A.

If there is one thing American railroads cannot afford it is pie-in-the-sky research. We’ve got to get down to basics.

The scarcities and increasing costs this country faces now in fuel, steel, cross ties and rolling stock may prove a blessing in disguise if they spur us to more efficient use of all our resources. And this implies research to determine the most effective designs and use of materials in track and equipment.

I have no apology to make for the applied research that has been done in this country. It has led to the development of higher capacity freight cars, more powerful locomotives and some very useful specialized operations such as unit trains and combined rail-highway service. And these were things that we needed.

But our research has not done enough for the basic track structure on which we operate – and this is the area in which I would hope to see us make real progress in the years just ahead.

In closing I would like to share with you something that was said by an associate of mine. He may well be here tonight, so let’s not embarrass him by naming names. But his thought is so appropriate that I do want to borrow it.

Sometimes I feel a little guilty, he remarked, when I refer to myself as a researcher. We’re trouble-shooters, not researchers. We just don’t have the time for real research.

In a way, this is very true. We have been trouble-shooters. We had no choice. We had to seek the immediate advantage in order to keep alive a transportation system of tremendous value to this country. If we did not, whatever we did develop of long term benefit would have little meaning.

Now we have to make the time to be real researchers – getting down to the elementals of wheel on rail on cross tie on ballast. And I am confident that we will. I wish you a continuation of a most successful meeting. Thank you for letting me be with you tonight.

---

*After-dinner address.

THE FRA TRACK RESEARCH PROGRAM: ITS ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

William B. O’Sullivan,     Chief, Improved Track Systems Research Division, Office of R & D, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, D.C.

Publisher Summary

This chapter reviews the origin and development of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) track research program. The FRA in the U.S. Department of Transportation had developed a track research program, addressing primary domestic investigative demands. Precaution was being constantly exercised by program management to avoid unwitting reiteration of what has already been accomplished. Problems concerning the safe and economic maintenance of railroad track in the US were too pressing to allow the waste of time and resources implicit in redundant research. While the FRA’s program was not unique, it was one that is as well conceived as a team effort could carry off and one that has gained substantial budgetary approval of the Congress. This program bore both the responsibility and expectation of significantly and favorably influencing change in maintenance-of-way practice in the years to come. The Federal Railroad Administration was not immune to the hazards of plural-client responsiveness. The complexities of the authoritative program formulation had been compounded by the need to reconcile programs to the sometimes conflicting expectations of different segments of society.

INTRODUCTION

Compiled in the program of the Symposium on Railroad Track Mechanics are presentations of clearly-focused, railroad track related research carried out in several locations. The activities, as portrayed, have been directed toward performance improvement of either an element of a total track system or the assembled system itself. In essence then, they have been applied research projects investigations directed toward clearly formulated objectives.

The Federal Railroad Administration in the U.S. Department of Transportation has developed a track research program addressing primary domestic investigative demands. In part, this program includes support projects similar in nature to those reported elsewhere at this Symposium. Precaution is being constantly exercised by program management to avoid unwitting reiteration of that which has already been accomplished. Problems concerning the safe and economic maintenance of railroad track in the U.S. today are too pressing to allow the waste of time and resources implicit in redundant research.

The technical approach, investigative techniques and derived conclusions reported by the specialists actively participating in the Symposium will be carefully reviewed by the Federal Railroad Administration staff assigned to the program. From this study, substantial guidance is foreseen as useful input to the Government program. Moreover, it would be improbable that other investigators in the U.S. would fail to be stimulated in the course of their own work by the achievements of their colleagues, at home and abroad, discussion of which will make a truly seminal event of this Symposium.

While the Federal Railroad Administration’s program is not unique, it is one which is as well-conceived as a team effort could carry off and, not unimportant, one which has gained substantial budgetary approval of the Congress. As such, this program bears both the responsibility and expectation of significantly and favorably influencing change in maintenance-of-way practice in years to come. Any program likely to have an impact of this magnitude not only demands perceptive structuring, but must also be sufficiently comprehensive to address rationally the multi-element matrix of important problems besetting satisfactory performance of contemporary railroad track subjected to ever-increasing service requirements. A description of the evolutionary process and present form of the Federal Railroad Administration track research program may be of interest to participants in the Symposium in order to permit an independent evaluation of program credibility and the probability of ultimate success.

LEGISLATIVE MANDATE FOR FEDERAL RAILROAD RESEARCH

Prior to 1965 there was no railroad research sponsored by the Federal Government in behalf of the community at large or the industry. In that year Congress approved the High Speed Ground Transportation Act † which authorized the Secretary of Commerce … to undertake research … including, but not limited to, components such as materials, aerodynamics, vehicle propulsion, vehicle control, communications and guideways … . This mandate was implemented at that time and in subsequent years by the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation. With the formation of the U.S. Department of Transportation in 1967, the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation was incorporated into the new Federal Railroad Administration. By The Department of Transportation Act, the Secretary of Transportation was authorized to: … promote and undertake research and development relating to transportation … . ††

On October 16, 1970, the President signed into law legislation governing railroad safety and the transportation of hazardous materials. The purpose of the legislation was promotion of safety in all areas of railroad operation and reduction of railroad accidents. Specifically, the legislation authorized the Secretary of Transportation to: … conduct as necessary, research, development, testing, evaluation and training in all areas of railroad safety … . ††† The Secretary is required to submit a report annually to the President for submission to Congress in the form of an evaluation of research completed and technological progress during the year.

Then, in 1974, apart from normal budgetary processes, the Secretary was allocated $10,000,000 for … conducting research and development activities under the Act … . †††† This special appropriation for Fiscal Year 1975 was to be applied to the rail safety program established by the 1970 legislation.

From this series of enabling acts it is evident that the Congress unequivocably intended Federally-supported railroad research to be substantively pursued. With so strong a mandate, agressive action by the participating agency is an obvious necessity. The Federal Railroad Administration track research program is one element of a positive response.

EVOLUTION OF THE TRACK RESEARCH PROGRAM

In the Federal circumstance, as in private industry, proposed research programs most readily gain management acceptance when three conditions are met: first, objectives are relevant and well-defined; second, a favorable relationship between research investment cost and final pay-off can be convincingly projected and, last, a logical research plan is presented. Of these three conditions, the last, perhaps, is the least difficult for technical staff to grapple with, at least in the formulation-of-approach stage. Recognition of suitable objectives or, put another way, distinguishing the basic problems from their symptoms is a more elusive thing. And, most difficult of all is the estimate of total cost in advance of inevitable, but as-yet unknown research setbacks.

The Federal Railroad Administration has not been immune to the hazards of plural-client responsiveness. The complexities of authoritative program formulation have been compounded by the need to reconcile programs to the sometimes conflicting expectations of different segments of society. Originally, Congress provided broad authority to progress unspecified railroad research. In recent years, Congressional concern with the safe conduct of railroad operation, influenced by the seemingly irreversible adverse trend in the frequency of railroad accidents has produced legislation that is directly safety oriented. The community, as abuttors to railroad rights of way, should reasonably expect freedom from incursive perils of major train accidents. At the same time, this same research-client sector may also anticipate that Federal expenditures for transportation improvement be devoted, in part, to cost-effective innovation tending to increase the efficiency of railroad transport, thereby advantageously affecting the cost and style of