Rail Transit Track Inspection Practices (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3 By law (see Appendix C), transit agencies cannot be regu- lated or told how to run their system. This leaves the issue of track safety to each individual agency. Though the NTSB was established in 1967 to conduct independent investiga- tions of serious transit accidents and offer recommendations to prevent reoccurrences, it has no regulatory or enforcement powers. This synthesis documents how transit agencies evaluate track defects and their severity, and how the number and seri- ousness of these defects affect train operations with respect to allowable speed and safety. To that end, information has been collected on these topics in the scope of work: 1. Staffing 2. Agency organization 3. Physical characteristics and age 4. Track inspection program criteria 5. Training/certification 6. Operating practices/defect response policy/regulatory requirements 7. Procurement practices 8. Track safety practices. The intent of this report is to provide information to the rail transit industry, general managers, transit staff, and other stakeholders so transit agencies can work together to fulfill the primary objective: safely moving people. ISSUES Transit agencies vary greatly in their policies, as highlighted throughout this report. Following is a listing of problem state- ment issues generated by the topic panel: • FRA requirements: Do transit agencies apply the fed- eral requirements for freight railroads to their property in the transit arena? Throughout this report, reference is made to the FRA and its criteria as they apply to the general railway system in the United States. • Agency policy: What are the policies, regulations, and guidelines that each transit agency uses to maintain its track structure? • Defects affecting operations (speed restriction/operations policy): Which safety defects trigger speed restrictions, if any? This issue was addressed in the questionnaire BACKGROUND Rail transportation systems in the United States have been around since 1830, when the first steam engine appeared. As the loads on the rails increased, engineers and maintenance workers recognized the need for harder rails and stiffer track structures, which had to be kept in a good state of repair to prevent derailments and potential loss of life. The rail itself has evolved from pig iron rail to the continuous casters of today, but the philosophy—that maintenance is essential to passenger safety—has not changed. The improvements in materials and rolling stock that help in the maintenance pro- cess are also inspired by that tenet. Every major city in the United States relied on passenger rail systems during the last decades of the 19th century and into the first part of the 20th century, but with the inventions of the automobile and airplane, which allowed more Americans greater freedom of travel, much of the urban railway systems disappeared. After President Dwight D. Eisenhower created the Interstate Highway System, the railroads were even fur- ther reduced. However, since 1980, when the first light rail (LR) system opened in San Diego, state and local govern- ments all over the country have rediscovered the importance of urban transportation, and have begun building light rail systems. The freight railroads were regulated until 1980, when the Staggers Rail Act turned railroads into private (and very profitable) businesses. The metropolitan railways that do not carry freight commodities have never been regulated, and therefore have created their own sets of maintenance stan- dards in order to prevent derailments and protect passengers. When a freight railroad violates a track safety standard, it is subject to heavy fines. This is not the case with transit agen- cies; if they violate their own safety standards, their only penalty is customer dissatisfaction. Transporting people safely is the primary objective of any transit agency. To perform this task, the track should be built and maintained to a certain standard. Tolerance for construc- tion (i.e., the acceptable amount of deviation from design dimensions) is well-defined and in most cases observed; however, although a number of organizations have defined absolute minimum maintenance requirements, none has pro- vided maintenance tolerances, leaving them to the individual transit agency. chapter one INTRODUCTION

4 and the follow-up interviews with seven transit mainte- nance supervisors. As a safety issue, this is highlighted throughout this report. • Wheel/rail interface: This issue is addressed in the ques- tionnaire. The diversity is shown and problems with this issue are addressed within the railroad industry. Specific issues with wheel/rail interface are not addressed in this report, but volumes of papers and studies are available. • Safety issues: How do agencies view safety? Safety is the first priority, emphasized by the seven respondents who were asked more specific questions about their philosophy. • Employee qualifications: Are employees trained before they are given the responsibility of protecting the rid- ing public by ensuring a safe track system? This issue was addressed in the questionnaire, responses to which showed that not all personnel are trained. • Agency practice dealing with challenges: How do tran- sit agencies define and respond to problems? A problem might be interpreted differently by a track maintenance worker than by a person responsible for keeping to a schedule. Finding the right balance between both depart- ments can be challenging, as expressed by the seven maintenance supervisors. • Management practice/implementation upon notice: Whose responsibility is it to prioritize and effectively implement a plan to correct a defect in the track struc- ture? The questionnaire shows how different agencies deal with this important task. • Track inspection policy specifics (types, timing, staff- ing, training etc.): The survey offers specifics about dif- ferent types of defects and how personnel are trained to identify these defects. Agency managers were asked whether their system uses a priority system, as recom- mended by APTA, to prioritize remedial actions. It could be the responsibility of the supervisor to assign man- power and determine the severity in order to determine when the task must be completed. • Who does what? The survey suggests that agencies differ in their assignment of responsibilities, and that respon- sibility may either roll up the chain of command or stay within the lower echelon. • Agency profile/physical characteristics (age): What is the general overview of each agency? This issue was addressed in the questionnaire. • Track inspection program: How frequently is track inspected and reported? This was addressed in the questionnaire. • Procurement policy: Do the agencies purchase only American products or consider price? Transit agencies differ on their procurement policies, as shown in the responses. • ADA issues: Has the agency faced any problems involv- ing the ADA? This issue was not specifically addressed in the questionnaire, but because all transit agencies receive federal financing, they must abide by the Americans with Disabilities Act enacted in 1991 and revised in 2011. DEFINITIONS The following common industry terms used in this report will help the reader gain a better understanding of track- related items. • Gage (gauge): Normally the distance measured between each rail 5⁄8 in. below the head. Some transit agencies with a ¾-in. wheel flange will measure ¼ in. to 5⁄8 in. below the top of rail. “Gage” is the U.S. spelling and “gauge” is the European spelling. • Cant (rail inclination): Cant is the term related to the tilting of either rail with respect to a plane parallel to the wheel axle. In the United States, the typical rail cant is 40:1 and in Europe it is 20:1. Cant determines the wheel and rail relationship and helps with hunting (the abrupt side-to-side movement caused by a wheel’s moving back and forth within the free play of the gage). This is also important for wheel and rail wear. In Europe this is typically referred to as rail inclination (see Figure 1). • Super-elevation (cant deficiency) (cant): This is the relationship between each rail irrespective of the wheel axle. Super-elevation is typically required on curves with speeds greater than 15 mph (see Figure 2). This relationship for standard gage track is calculated by E D Vt = × ×0 0007 2. where Et is the total super-elevation, D is the degree of curve, and V is the velocity in miles per hour. When using the radius of the curve, the formula is Et = 3.78 × V × (V ÷ R), where R is the radius of the curve in feet. Once the full super-elevation is deter- mined, then an unbalance is applied, typically to a maximum of 3 inches. In Europe they use the term cant deficiency or simply cant (which can become confusing when international discussions occur). • Alignment: This is the horizontal path along which the track is designed. FIGURE 1 Wheel/rail interface: static.

5 • Unbalance (underbalance) (imbalance): Once the full super-elevation is calculated, the unbalance is sub- tracted from Et to achieve the actual elevation applied Ea. The amount of centripetal force must typically not exceed 0.1 g to 0.15 g (see Figure 3). • Twist (cross slack): the difference between several cross level measurements. • Tangent track: This is simply the term given for straight track. • Flange (wheel flange): This is the amount of metal that extends down beyond the wheel tread which guides the train along the track. • Flangeway: The distance between the gage face of the running rail and the guard face of the guard rail or restraining rail (see Figure 4). • Tread: The surface of the wheel that rides on top of the rail. • Rail flaw: An internal or external defect in the rail (see Figure 5). • Direct Fixation Fastener (DFF): This type of rail fas- tener is used when constructing direct fixation (DF) track. It is made up of two steel plates surrounded in rubber that do not touch, allowing for noise and vibration protection to protect the concrete plinth from impact forces. These fasteners also allow for stray cur- rent protection. The following nonstandard acronyms, common in the rail transit industry, are used in this report: • CPUC: California Public Utilities Commission • AREMA: American Railroad Engineering and Mainte- nance Association • CS: Canadian Standards • GRMS: Gage Restraint Measuring System • CWR: Continuous welded rail (any rail longer than 400 feet) • TMS: Track Maintenance Standards • TSS: Track Safety Standards. FIGURE 3 Balance–unbalance. FIGURE 5 Internal flaw. FIGURE 4 Flangeway. FIGURE 2 Typical interface with super-elevation: dynamic.

6 REPORT ORGANIZATION Information in this synthesis is presented as follows: Chapter one—Introduction offers general historical back- ground of the passenger transportation system as well as the problem statements that guided this synthesis report. This chapter also contains specific definitions that are common to the industry as well as acronyms and issues related to the transit industry. Chapter two—Major Associations and Agencies Affili- ated with the Rail Transit Industry identifies those entities active in the rail transit industry. Chapter three—Case Examples contains agency details from three heavy rail systems and one light rail system. Each agency was visited and observations documented. Chapter four—Survey Results presents rail agency re - sponses in tabular form, showing percentages of agency responses to each question. Detailed text responses, as they were received, are also provided in this chapter. Further details are given in the matrix as well as in bar graphs for certain questions. At the end of this chapter are the responses of seven transit supervisors who were asked more specific questions regarding their philosophy pertaining to track maintenance. Chapter five—Conclusions summarizes the report find- ings and suggest further research. Appendix A is the survey questionnaire. Appendix B is the list of agencies that received the questionnaire. (Agencies are not identified by name and only listed as A, B, C, etc., within the report to protect their anonymity, as requested.) Appendix C is a Congressional hearing testimony con- cerning transit oversight. Appendix D contains FTA Track Safety Standards. Appendices E and F show the specific cri- teria of track safety standards presented by APTA, FRA, and nine transit agencies that allowed their maintenance criteria to be included in this report. Appendix F contains a discussion that applies to the criteria in Appendix E.