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.
22 intervals needed to be amended; whether track remedial action requirements needed to be amended; and whether different track inspection priorities and methods were required. A study was presented to Congress on May 2, 2011, and in August of the same year the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) accepted the task of addressing specific changes to the FRA 213 TSS to improve the track inspection process, including: ⢠Expanding the use of automated inspection, ⢠Developing additional training requirements for inspectors, ⢠Rejecting a maximum speed for inspection vehicles, and ⢠Influencing the safety culture through a safety reporting system. Freight railroads are private businesses whereas transit agencies are not. Freight railroads are policed whereas transits are not. Freight railroads carry commodities whereas tran - sits carry passengers. The FRA is constantly updating and improving its TSS and strengthening enforcement of these rules. For their part, freight railroads have realized the importance of maintaining track to strict levels because it will affect the bottom line if they do not. APTA has developed minimum track safety standards but they cannot be enforced. Survey results indicate agencies are calling for a new generic maintenance standard that can be slightly modified to accommodate differences in infrastruc- ture and vehicles. Agencies appear to have concluded that it is time to develop universal track safety standards before the newer systems get too old, and to ensure that all passengers are riding on safe track. The survey revealed a wide variety of guidelines within the transit industry. For example, five transit agencies, all older, reported having other than standard gage track, which can shift the center of gravity causing different unbalances between the systems. The newer systems all reported standard gage with 115RE rail, except for one that chose girder rail. Standards for wheel gage, wheel flange, and wheel tread are also mixed among the transit agencies. Even wheel diam- eters vary, which can dramatically change the wheel to rail interface and in turn affect the minimum maintenance stan- dards. Many agencies reported the same maintenance require- ments had varied standards with respect to the wheel and rail interface. Rail develops corrugation if the wheel and rail are A large number of new rail transit systems have been built in the United States in the last few decades that may start to show signs of age and require more maintenance since the inaugural train ran on the track. Survey responses indi- cate that each agency appears to have developed its own set of maintenance standards, in some cases using FRA Track Safety Standards (TSS) as minimum criteria while reporting actually maintaining their track to a higher standard. This synthesis documents the âstate of the practice,â the diversity in maintenance standards, and even some agency philosophy. Minimum track safety standards only apply to a single cri- terion and certain specific combinations of defects must not be ignored. Evaluating these combinations of defects which could impact system safety is one of the functions of the maintenance professional. One location of track can have gage, line, and surface measurements at the borderline of the limits, yet that track may be at a very high risk for a derailment. Survey results indicate that there is a need for a vehicle that can measure track parameters and internal rail integrity, all while applying a load to the track. If such a specialized vehicle could be designed that would do a computer analysis by rating every curve and segment of transit track, it would be invaluable. Every 500 feet of track could be given a numerical rating, and as the track came close to operational limits, main- tenance personnel could correct the defects. Survey respon- dents indicate that making comparisons to previous ratings is a good maintenance tool when planning activities and apply- ing for funding. Several agencies have experienced a 30-year cycle after which the track appears to begin deterioration. Some types of track may experience this before 30 years and some may even see these material failures occur after 10 years. Improvements in technology, and better materials, may serve the industry better. Respondents agree that the most important role of main- taining track is to prevent derailments. When a transit sys- tem begins to fail, it could be because of two factors, lack of planning and maintenance. Proper planning of maintenance activities is the key to success. On October 16, 2008, the Rail Safety Improvement Act 2008 was enacted. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation was ordered to determine whether mandatory track inspection chapter five CONCLUSIONS
23 not matched correctly. Noise and vibration can also develop if the match is not correct. For responses to survey questions about minimum safety standards that are used, fewer than half (13) of the 29 agencies reported using FRA, a similar number (14) use APTA, two (2) agencies use California Public Utilities Commission, one (1) uses the FTA, and five reported having their own minimum safety standards. These standards are similar and the table shows the similarities between APTA and the FRA. When asked if they had maintenance standards, 24 (83%) said they have their own, four (14%) agencies do not have maintenance standards, and five (17%) said that their maintenance standards are the same as the track safety standards. Twenty-one agencies, or about three- quarters (72%), have a priority system requiring speed restric- tions if a defect is found, whereas the rest (28%) do not. Inspection frequencies also vary, with 15 agencies (52%) reporting twice weekly inspections and others doing an inspec- tion once a month; one agency performs inspections only twice per year. Four of the agencies (14%) surveyed never run a geometry car and one agency never runs a rail flaw detector vehicle. Both APTA and the FRA require that a geometry car be used. The FRA has strict requirements for rail flaw detec- tion, as does APTA for this type of testing. The frequency of inspections required by the FRA is very detailed, and APTA has suggested criteria about frequency of track inspection. Only a little over a quarter of the agencies (eight, or 28%) train their workers about track safety standards and two (7%) do no training. The FRA has only had training requirements for continuous welded rail since 2009. Since 2012, the FRA has required training on FRA 213 TSS. Neither APTA nor the responding agencies have requirements for training. Although transit agencies are all different, there is a com- mon responsibility that each recognizes and strives to achieve, and that is safely transporting passengers. Based on the information in this report, the following gen- eral topics are suggested for future study: ⢠Training ⢠Geometry testing ⢠Wheel-rail interface ⢠Procurement practices.
