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.
11 Question 4: What is your vehicle power system? ⢠Seventeen (59%) are operated by catenary and 11 (38%) by third-rail (see Figure 6). Only one agency is operated by diesel power. Question 5: About how many miles of embedded track are in your system? ⢠Thirteen (45%) reported having no embedded track and nine (31%) have 4 to 10 miles of embedded track. One agency reported that it has more than 50 miles of embedded track (see Figure 7). Question 6: About how many miles of direct fixation track do you have? ⢠Ten (34%) of the transit agencies reported having between 10 and 50 miles of DF track, four (14%) have no DF track, three reported more than 50 miles of DF track, and the remaining agencies reported between 1 and 50 miles of DF track (see Figure 8). Question 7: About how many miles of ballasted track? ⢠Eleven (38%) reported having 10 to 50 miles and six (21%) reported more than 50 miles of ballasted track (see Figure 9), while the remainder reported less than 50 miles. Question 8: How many track maintenance workers do you employ? ⢠Seven (24%) of the 29 respondents said they have fewer than 10 maintenance workers, another seven (24%) said they have between 10 and 30, and the same number (24%) said they have more than 100. Question 9: Is your system standard gage 56½â? ⢠Twenty-four (83%) of the 29 agencies surveyed have stan- dard gage; the other five (17%) reported a different gage. Question 10: Do your vehicles have tapered (conical) wheels? ⢠One respondent did not know if his agency has tapered wheels, and one system has a combination of tapered Thirty-five questionnaires were mailed to transit agencies, 34 in the United States and one in Canada (see Appendix B). Twenty-nine agencies responded with completed question- naires, an 83% response rate. The primary objective was to survey transit agencies that were not under FRA jurisdiction, and this narrowed the field to light rail and heavy rail transit agencies. The questionnaire results are tallied in Tables 1â19. Table 1 shows the survey responses. Tables 2â19 are graphs of specific questions highlighting some questionnaire responses. Each one indicates the number of agencies responding to each answer. Answers to questions 1â35 follow. Agency responses to each question are provided here, offering some observa- tions, based on either percentage or number of transit agen- cies responding. In some cases, percentages do not add up to 100% because not all agencies responded to all questions. Question 1: About how many total miles of track are incor- porated in your system (not route miles)? Do not include storage yards. ⢠Eleven of the agencies (38%) reported having between 11 and 50 miles of track, which will be considered average with respect to this report. Four agencies (14%) reported having less than 10 miles of track, which will be consid- ered small; seven (24%) reported having 51â100 miles, which will be categorized as above average; two (7%) reported having 101â200 miles, considered large; and five (17%) reported having more than 200 miles, con- sidered very large. Question 2: What year was the first segment of track opened within your system? ⢠The oldest system in the United States began oper- ation in 1888, and the newest in 2008. Question 3: What is your top speed on mainline track? ⢠Eleven agencies (38%) reported a top speed of 5 mph; 10 (34%) reported speeds in excess of 60 mph; four (14%) had a top speed of 45 mph; three (10%) had a top speed of 60 mph; and one system stayed under 35 mph. chapter four sURVEY REsULTs (text continued on page 18)
12 TABLE 1 SURVEY RESPONSES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 Total Track Miles < 10 4 1 1 1 1 14% 11-50 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38% 51-100 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24% 101-200 2 1 1 7% >200 5 1 1 1 1 1 17% 2 Year Opened 1964 1904 1979 2004 1989 1888 1985 1913 1955 1907 2007 1976 1984 1930 1900 1989 2003 1990 1990 1972 2000 1985 1889 1992 1898 2008 1993 2004 1996 1912 1964 3 Top Speed < 35 mph 1 1 3% 45 mph 4 1 1 1 1 14% 55 mph 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38% 60 mph 3 1 1 1 10% > 60 mph 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 34% 4 Power System Catenary 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 59% 3rd Rail 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41% 4th Rail 0 0% Linear Induction 0 0% Diesel 1 1 3% Other 0 0% 5 Miles Embbedded Track Zero 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 45% 1-3 4 1 1 1 1 14% 4-10 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31% 10-50 2 1 1 7% > 50 1 1 3% 6 Miles DF Track Zero 4 1 1 1 1 14% 1-3 5 1 1 1 1 1 17% 4-10 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24% 10-50 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 34% > 50 3 1 1 1 10% 7 Miles Ballasted Zero 1 1 3% 1-3 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 21% 4-10 5 1 1 1 1 1 17% 10-50 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38% > 50 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 21% 8 Number Maint. Workers < 10 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24% 10-30 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24% 31-50 3 1 1 1 10% 51-100 5 1 1 1 1 1 17% > 100 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24% 9 Standard Gage? Yes 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 83% No 5 1 1 1 1 1 17% 10 Tapered Wheels? Yes 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 76% No 5 1 1 1 1 1 17% Some do, some don't 1 1 3% Don't know 1 1 3% 11 Wheel Flanges 3/4" 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24% 1" 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38% AAR 1B 4 1 1 1 1 14% Other 3 1 1 1 10% Don't know 4 1 1 1 1 14% 12 Wheel Tread 3" 2 1 1 7% 3-1/2" 2 1 1 7% 4" 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 34% 4-1/2" 5 1 1 1 1 1 17% 5" 1 1 3% Other 1 1 3% Don't know 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28% ? No. Question Totals Transit Agency %
13 TABLE 1 (continued) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 13 Minimum Maint. Standards Used FRA 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 45% APTA 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 48% CA Utilities 2 1 1 7% FTA 1 1 3% Canadian 0 0% None 0 0% Other/Our Own 5 1 1 1 1 1 17% 14 Have Maint. Standards Yes 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 83% No 4 1 1 1 1 14% More Strict? Yes 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 34% More Strict? No 5 1 1 1 1 1 17% 15 Use a Priority System? Yes 21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 72% No 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28% If Yes, speed restriction? 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 69% 16 Can Inspector shutdown Track? Yes 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 66% No 3 1 1 1 10% Depends 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 24% 17 Inspectors ï¬le reports? Yes 28 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 97% No 0 0% Only if a defect 1 1 3% 18 Supervisor make Maint. Schedule? Yes 26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 90% No 3 1 1 1 10% If No, who? 0 0% 19 How often Walk Mainline Twice Weekly 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 52% Once Weekly 2 1 1 7% Once per Month 5 1 1 1 1 1 17% Twice per year 1 1 3% Once per year 0 0% Other 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 21% NO Walking 0 0% 20 How often Walk Mainline Turnouts Twice Weekly 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28% Once Weekly 2 1 1 7% Once per Month 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 55% Twice per year 0 0% Once per year 0 0% Other 3 1 1 1 10% NO Walking 0 0% 21 How often Geometry Car Once per month 0 0% Twice per year 4 1 1 1 1 14% Once per year 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 52% Every 2 Years 2 1 1 7% Never 4 1 1 1 1 14% Other 4 1 1 1 1 14% 22 Rail Flaw Detector Once per month 0 0% Twice per year 5 1 1 1 1 1 17% Once per year 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 55% Every 2 Years 1 1 3% Never 1 1 3% Other 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 21% 23 Are you governed by FRA All Track 5 1 1 1 1 1 17% Half and half 0 0% Most is NOT 4 1 1 1 1 14% None is 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 69% ? No. Question Totals Transit Agency % (continued on next page)
14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 24 Do you sub-contract Track Maint. Yes 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 52% No 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 48% If Yes < 10% 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41% 10% - 50% 3 1 1 1 10% > 50% 0 0% 25 Sub out Inspections? Track 3 1 1 1 10% GRMS 2 1 1 7% Geometry Car 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 76% Rail Flaw Detector 29 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 100% Bridge Inspection 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28% We sub-nothing 0 0% 26 Procurement Buy America? Yes 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 66% No 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 31% 27 Only Low Bid Yes 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 59% No 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 41% 28 Do you have a CWR Plan Yes 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 66% No 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 34% Don't have CWR 0 0% 29 Inspector Qualiï¬cation Process? Yes 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 76% No 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 21% If Yes, Written Exam? Yes 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 59% No 4 1 1 1 1 14% 30 Maint. Worker Training RWP 1/per year 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 48% RWP 1 Only 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 21% RWP Never 3 1 1 1 10% TSS 1/year 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28% TSS 1 only 3 1 1 1 10% TSS Never 2 1 1 7% TSS 2/Year 2 1 1 7% Equipment 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 59% Other 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 21% 31 Predominant Type Tie Wood 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 55% Concrete 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 45% Steel 0 0% Rubber 0 0% Tropical Hardwoods 1 1 3% Other 1 1 3% 32 Type Rail 113.1 100 115 115 115 115 115 100 115 100 115 115 115 100 115 115 115 115 115 119 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 113.1 33 Trade Union? Yes 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 79% No 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 21% 34 Hand Held Device for Defects? Yes 2 1 1 7% No 27 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 93% 35 Future Plans Update Standards 17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 59% Write a Maint. Manual 4 1 1 1 1 14% Write a CWR Plan 3 1 1 1 10% Nothing, we are good 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38% Totals Transit Agency %? No. Question TABLE 1 (continued)
15 TABLES 2â19 GrAphS of SpEcific quESTionS hiGhLiGhTinG SomE quESTionnAirE rESponSES Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 (continued on next page)
16 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 TABLES 2â19 (continued)
17 Table 18 Table 19 TABLES 2â19 (continued) FIGURE 7 Embedded track. FIGURE 8 Direct fixation (DF) track. FIGURE 6 Third-rail shoe. FIGURE 9 Ballasted track. Concrete ties, 115 rail, CWR, e-clip, with #3 ballast and overhead catenary.
18 standards are not stricter than the Track Safety Standards and 10 (34%) said they are stricter. Question 15: Do you have a priority system related to track defects? ⢠Twenty-one agencies (72%) said yes, although one reported that no speed restriction is applied to the prior- ity system. Eight (28%) said no. Twenty (69%) have a speed restriction associated with defects. Question 16: Does a Track Inspector have the authority to shut down the railroad? ⢠Nineteen (66%) said yes, three (10%) said no, and seven (24%) reported that it depends. Question 17: Do Track Inspectors file reports? ⢠Twenty-eight of the 29 surveyed (97%) said yes; the others responded that reports are only filed if there is a defect. Question 18: Does the Track Supervisor set priorities and develop a maintenance schedule? ⢠Twenty-six (76%) said yes and three (10%) said no. Question 19: How often do Inspectors perform a walking inspection of the mainline? ⢠Fifteen (52%) of the agencies inspect their mainline twice per week. Five (17%) reported their mainline was inspected once a month. One agency (3%) performs a walking inspection twice per year. Question 20: How often do Inspectors perform a walking inspection of mainline turnouts? ⢠Eight (28%) said inspections are performed twice weekly, 16 (55%) said inspections are conducted monthly, and two (7%) agencies said once weekly. Question 21: How often do you run a geometry car on the mainline? ⢠Fifteen (52%) reported running one once per year, four (14%) said twice per year, four (14%) reported they never run a geometry car. Question 22: How often do you run a rail flaw detector car on your mainline? ⢠Sixteen (55%) reported doing this once per year, five (17%) said twice per year, one (3%) agency does this every two years, and one agency never runs a rail flaw detector car. and flat wheels. The majority of properties (22, or 76%) have tapered wheels and five (17%) agencies have flat wheels. Question 11: Are your wheel flanges . . . [¾â, 1â, AAR 1B, Other, Donât know]? ⢠Eleven systems (38%) have 1-inch flanges, whereas seven (24%) have ¾-inch flanges. Four (14%) agencies did not know and three (10%) responded something other than the options listed. Question 12: Is your wheel tread . . . [3â, 3½â, 4â, 4½â, 5â, Other, Donât know]? ⢠Maintenance professionals at eight agencies (28%) did not know the wheel tread measures. Ten (34%) have 4-inch tread, five (17%) have 4½-inch, one (3%) agency has a 5-inch tread, two (7%) have 3-inch tread, and two have 3½-inch tread. One agency has something other than the options listed. Question 13: What minimum Track Safety Standard (TSS) is used for track maintenance? ⢠Thirteen agencies (45%) reported using FRA, 14 (48%) use APTA. Two (7%) agencies use the California Utili- ties Commission, and one (3%) agency uses FTA. Five (17%) agencies either use their own standards or some- thing other than the options listed (see Figure 10). Question 14: Do you have your own Track Maintenance Standards? ⢠Twenty-four agencies (83%) said yes. Four (14%) agen- cies said no. Five agencies (17%) said their maintenance FIGURE 10 Prioritization system.
19 Question 23: Is your system governed by the FRA? ⢠Twenty (69%) said that none of their track is governed by the FRA. Five (17%) say that the FRA does govern their systems and four (14%) say that most of their track is not governed by the FRA. Question 24: Do you sub-contract any track maintenance? ⢠Fifteen (52%) said yes and 14 (48%) no. Question 25: Do you sub-contract any inspections? ⢠Three agencies (10%) said they subcontract track inspections. Twenty-two (76%) subcontract geometry car inspections. All 29 (100%) agencies state that they subcontract rail flaw detection. Question 26: Are all procurements under âBuy Americaâ? ⢠Nineteen (66%) said yes and 10 (34%) no. Question 27: Does the agency ONLY accept lowest bid when procuring material and services? ⢠Seventeen (59%) said yes and 12 (41%) said no. Question 28: Do you have a CWR plan? ⢠Although all agencies (100%) reported having CWR, 19 (66%) reported having a CWR plan and 10 (34%) reported not having a CWR plan. Question 29: Does your agency utilize a formal track inspection/track foreman written qualification process? ⢠Twenty-two (76%) said yes and six (21%) said no. One (1) agency did not respond to this question. Question 30: Do track maintenance workers have training requirements? ⢠Fourteen (48%) require once yearly Roadway Worker Protection (RWP) training. Three agencies (10%) do not do any RWP training. Eight (28%) perform Track Safety Standards (TSS) training once per year, while two (7%) agencies do no TSS training. Seventeen (59%) do equipment training. Question 31: What is the predominant type of railroad ties used in your track? ⢠Sixteen agencies (55%) reported wood ties as the pre- dominant type and 13 (45%) reported concrete. One (3%) agency reported something other than wood, con- crete, steel, rubber, or tropical hardwood ties. Question 32: What is the predominant type of rail used in your track? ⢠The overwhelming majority of agencies, 26 (90%) reported 115RE rail. Three agencies (10%) reported the predominant rail type as 100-pound. Question 33: Are your railroad track maintenance and inspection employees represented by a trade union? ⢠Twenty-three agencies (79%) said yes and six (21%) said no. Question 34: Do you use computer hand-held devices for recording track defects? ⢠Only two agencies (7%) reported yes, the rest said no. Question 35: Do you have any future plans to . . . : ⢠Seventeen agencies (59%) reported that they intend to re-write their maintenance standards. Four (14%) stated that they intend to write a maintenance manual. Three (10%) agencies said they intend to write a CWR plan. Eleven agencies (38%) say they are satisfied and have no plans to change anything. Additional interview questions were asked of seven tran- sit supervisors to gain a better understanding of their phi- losophies pertaining to track maintenance. The responses follow: Question 1: What is your philosophy on track maintenance? ⢠In a word it would be proactive! You should know the condition of your track and the areas that are approach- ing (or) exceeding your thresholds. These should be dealt with prior to becoming a defect. ⢠Improve overall system reliability through maintenance and minimize or eliminate system interruptions. We are measured against performance-based targets and there- fore strive to ensure that track issues (switch failures, signaling events, track condition, and status) are mini- mized. We also target maintenance that helps prolong the life of the track system in order to minimize capital spending costs. ⢠Track maintenance is work in progress. The track is under constant rehabilitation. Following Track Safety Standards it is easy to stay ahead of track problems and slow orders. Establishing good trend analysis on the specific track and area of the county allows for repair schedules to be created, that gives Operations time to adjust train schedules allowing track time for the specified repairs. ⢠my philosophy is simple really. make every effort to stay ahead of the curve. This applies to corrective
20 maintenance (Cm) as well as preventative. For Cm, my approach is to use every resource available to me at the time. Of course this includes the newest materials, my own experience, and any literature about the issue at hand, but it also has to include the experience and know-how of those around me and in the industry. It is very rare, if ever, that the corrective maintenance prob- lem at hand is unique and has never been seen before. Pride has to take a back seat and allow you not only to ask others questions but to actually listen and apply their suggestions appropriately. Combine all available resources; correct the problem with the long-term solu- tion in mind. The long-term solution is not always the quickest or easiest but has to be pushed in order to reach the next stage, preventative maintenance (Pm). If your time is consumed, as it often is, putting out fires from the last âquick solution,â Pm is difficult to obtain. If youâre lucky enough to be involved with Pm, the phi- losophy is the same. Approach Pm with an open mind. Status quo may or may not be the best approach. Use your resources. ⢠RR and transit have different practical issues. much of transit is using it until you replace the entire track systemâfor example, street trackâyou can make minor repairs but it will deteriorate until all you can do is replace it. Conventional RR track is open to cyclical maintenance . . . tie renewal (30%) surfacing. The DFF and hybrid fixations in the subways are challenging. Basicallyâif the track can be maintained to keep it in good conditionâreasonablyâthat would be the first option. ⢠#1 priorityâPerform âmust haveâ repairs first. These are repairs/maintenance required to meet the minimum track safety standards. #2 priorityâPerform special work main tenance to keep in good state of repair. #3 priorityâPerform rail maintenance such as replace- ment, tamping, drainage, prioritized by need. ⢠Ideally, track maintenance should always be performed so that the track does not degrade to the point that Pri- ority 1 defects appear. That means keeping the track at an acceptable condition, consistent with good riding qualities. Rail and fastener plus tie and ballast main- tenance should assure the longevity of those elements and assure a good riding quality. Safety should always be paramount and this is also a basic precept for Track maintenance, along with quality. Resources should be allocated to achieve these goals. Question 2: What challenges do you face when trying to get track time for maintenance activities? ⢠The largest challenge is events in town. Youâre not only wrestling with rail transportation but also with the mar- keting folk. This of course is understandable, as we are in the business of moving people. ⢠The operating rules for our driverless system require that all track maintenance is completed under closed track conditions. This requires traffic diversions that impact headways and frequency of train service. Some of the diversions can have a significant impact on ser- vice levels and we are therefore restricted from running these diversions at certain times of the month. Fur- ther, there is often a small window of time that we are allowed for the diversion. The restrictions on diversions combined with weather and other events severely limit our access to the track for maintenance. ⢠Track time is always difficult, operations needs plenty of notification. Passenger service does not react to unsched- uled maintenance favorably. With new extensions being added [and] head ways increased, staying ahead of the maintenance is critical to success. ⢠Rapid transit and light rail (LR) system is a two-track system that operates revenue service between the approx- imate hours of 5 a.m. and 1:30 a.m., seven days a week. This allows track, as well as other maintenance, to be primarily handled during the hours of 1:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. This obviously limits the extent of work that can be done in one night. It also sometimes limits the quality of work as itâs performed, specifically, proper welding time and rail expansion time. Both suffer because of the limited on-track time. This leads to more main- tenance in the future that may not have been necessary if the task had the proper time frame. Other challenges include: high rail equipment is shared between lines; very few pieces are dedicated to a specific line. None of the lines physically connect, sharing track time and location with other trades and departments, restrictions placed by communities, scheduling changes owing to weather and events. ⢠Safety rules requiring track time to perform main- tenance are making the work more difficult. It now takes two people to inspect RR track, and more in the event the line of site is obstructed owing to curves etc. most transit systems by their very nature are inten- sively using their track, which means that there is little opportunity to take possession of the track to do work. We schedule work during the night owl shutdown or if the line can be bused, try that. The night owls are typi- cally short so the expense for what is accomplished is high. ⢠The last several years have seen a change with the abil- ity to obtain revenue track time. A greater emphasis has been placed on customers being delivered accord- ing to schedule. Our thought is that it might be at the expense of track maintenance. I should make clear that this does not apply to meeting safety standards. It is more directed at trying to get ahead of the mainte- nance curve, scheduled Pms, etc. One particular issue is the inability to get two single track operations on the same day. Another issue is obtaining a rolling single track, in other words moving from one switch section to the next. ⢠Competition from other departments and/or divisions for track access, trying to satisfy the needs of the cus-
21 tomers, assuring a decent level of on-time performance, political pressure. Question 3: How do you determine priorities for Track maintenance? ⢠We record not only defects but also observations, areas that may develop into a defect. We use a three-color priority scheme that we call severity estimators. Green is really an observation, yellow should be scheduled for maintenance, and a red would be repaired or protected immediately. ⢠Track maintenance is prioritized by safety, routine, and planned special work. The target is to complete routine maintenance on a repetitive cycle with special projects (grinding, overhauls, etc.) layered on top of the cycle. The repetitive cycle would be pre-empted by any emer- gency or safety critical work. ⢠The work orders are prioritized every six months and updated, then the work schedule is amended. This allows for real time evaluation of track conditions, allowing for rescheduling of work force and track time for the maximum efficiency. ⢠Track walking and inspection is primarily done during the day with daily reports. These reports (quality assurance and quality control) are prioritized and are the pri mary tool for prioritizing the after service work. Long-term issues and larger jobs that may require a service diversion and shutdown are discussed and prioritized at manage- ment level along with the transportation department pri- marily for logistics. ⢠Day to day [management] is done with the maintenance supervisors, the assistant directors and the maintenance directors. They review the inspectorâs reports and deter- mine the priorities. Obviously the work is prioritized in regard to (1) safety and (2) [to] prevent or eliminate speed restrictions. ⢠Based on periodic and frequent quality inspections of track under load on a regular basis, assessing the con- dition and longevity of the major track elements on a periodic basis, comparing the conditions found against industry standards and observing trends. Question 4: What is your number one concern when per- forming track maintenance? ⢠Safety! This has always been and probably always will be a dangerous activity. Concerns about employee and patron safety are no doubt number one. ⢠Safety: Safety for the passengers during service and safety for the track workers during maintenance. ⢠Employee safety, working long hours and tight areas, keeping the work equipment updated, and service for maximum productivity. ⢠Number one is always the safety of the riding public and the workforce as well. Each task has to be consid- ered a long-term solution that will keep that piece of track safe for a[s] long as possible. An overall level of safety must not only be maintained but exceeded to the highest level possible for that parameter. Long-term solutions to maintenance may be more time consuming and usually more expensive, but they allow breathing room down the line (no pun intended). If maintenance can be done properly for each task, this allows you to perform Pm work and stay ahead of the curve. ⢠That it is done right. It is very easy to botch up main- tenance work and leave a nightmare for the next guy. ⢠Customer safety. Our track inspection and mainte- nance standards are generally tighter than APTA rec- ommendations. This attention to safety has resulted in a marked decrease in safety-related incidents such as derailments. ⢠Achieving the desired results regarding the quantity and quality of the work performed in order to assure the longevity and ride quality of the track, along with the safety of the track and the passengers. making sure that resources are properly allocated and that productivity is at its maximum. These additional responses highlight the vital importance of maintaining a transit system, and these professionalsâ pro- active approach to track maintenance. There are many dif- ferent facetsâemployees and mechanismsâthat make up a transit system. These elements must work together for a system to run smoothly.
