A Review of the Department of Transportation's Plan for Analyzing and Testing Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes Letter Report (Phase 2) (2017)

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.

Transporta National Ac The Hono Secretary U.S. Depa 1200 New Washingto Dear Secre In ac cine (NAS (DOT) co committee of test res dressing th nologies o DOT’s rec Car Stand 2015). The in Append Committe The analysis p specific fi are includ tors worth gression m also recom lation appr likely to b tial for ac within the Committe In ca emergency nia, and th July 6, 20 tions on is testing pla for additio sessions to tion Research ademies of Sc rable Elaine C rtment of Tran Jersey Ave., n, DC 20590 tary Chao: cordance with EM) formed ncerning the responds to P ults and, on t e emergency r systems test onsideration ards and Ope committee’s ix B. e’s Phase 1 R committee’s lan prepared eld and labor ed in compara y of testing or odel to exam mended step oach used for e beneficial in cident avoidan committee’s e’s Phase 2 R rrying out Ph brake applic e New York 17, to hear pre sues concern n. In addition nal details on develop this Board of the iences, Engine hao sportation SE a congressio a committee performance hase 2 of the he basis of D performance ed by DOT. T of the ECP b rational Con statement of eport Phase 1 repo by DOT, as s atory testing t tive analyses additional m ine how tank s that DOT sh the HHFT fi the operatio ce through im statement of t eport ase 2 of its ta ations conduc Air Brake fac sentations fro ing the result , the commit the committe letter report. ering, and Me nal request, th to review te of electronica request. The OT’s test resu of ECP brake he results of t raking system trols for Hig task is shown rt, which was pecified in th o ensure that of braking sy easurements, t car spillage r ould take in c nal rule. As th nal managem proved train ask. sk, committe ted at the Nor ility in Wate m DOT repre s and conclus tee reviewed e’s informatio i dicine e National A sts conducte lly controlled committee re lts and analy s during in-tr he physical te requirement h-Hazard Fla in Appendix sent to you e committee’ appropriate d stems. To en he report reco elates to spec onducting its e committee ent of in-train handling or e members w folk Southern rtown, New Y sentatives, da ions that DOT various writte n-gathering a cademies of S d by the U.S pneumatic ( views the con sis, provides ain derailmen sts and relate s in the Haza mmable Train A, and the co on February s statement o ata on the pr sure that the p mmended tha ific circumsta planned valid observed, rep forces. How engineer-initi itnessed field Corporation ork. The com ta analysts, a derived fro n materials s ctivities.) The W S ciences, Engi . Department ECP) brakes duct of DOT its findings a ts relative to d analysis are rdous Materia s (HHFT) F mmittee’s me 22, 2017, rev f task. The re opagation of lan is focused t DOT develo nces of the ac ation of the m orts indicate t ever, conside ated emergen and laborator rail yard in C mittee held nd various sta m implement ubmitted to it committee d   500 Fifth Stree ashington, DC eptember 29 neering, and of Transpor . In this repor ’s tests and r nd conclusion other braking intended to i ls: Enhanced inal Rule (M mbership is s iewed the te port recomm emergency br on significan p a multivaria cidents. The odeling and hat ECP brak ration of the p cy braking w y testing rela onway, Penn a public sessi keholder org ing its analys . (See Appen eliberated in c t, NW 20001 , 2017 Medi- tation t, the eports s ad- tech- nform Tank ay 8, hown st and ended aking t fac- te re- report simu- es are oten- as not ted to sylva- on on aniza- is and dix D losed

The the perfor DOT’s tes proaches a statement should be letter repo Committe The rized here With ed that us latency tim larly, usefu with EOT ry testing a DOT systems on train with result in ap EOT syste uncertainty In re of further al Railroa the factors Car Safety tank car d less, how obtained f In vi behavior o gency app yond the c out valida with the a and simula the estima mented wi computati In su of train de cy perform useful in in cc: Kevin committee’s s mance of EC t results and nd sources o of task specif required of ra rt in draft fo e (see Append committee’s r . regard to DO eful measured es were obtai l measured da devices or a D t the New Yo reanalyzed th the basis of a derailment in proximately o ms. Previousl in the likely sponse to the testing and an d Administrat identified by Project and erailment and the stochastic rom DOT’s m ew of DOT’s f DOT’s mo lication of bra ommittee’s st tion exercises ctual outcom tion approach ted emergenc th DP or EOT onal models. m, on the bas railment scen ance of ECP forming you Kesler, DOT/ tatement of ta P brakes relat analysis.” Alt f data, it did n ies that the c ilroads in rev rm, according ix E for a list eview of DOT T’s testing of data on two- ned from the ta on the time P configuratio rk Air Brake f e expected nu the new test itiated betwe ne less tank c y, that differen number of pun committee’s alysis, DOT i ion’s (FRA’s the Railway the independe puncture esti nature of tho odeling and s reliance on deling and sim ke systems. S atement of tas involving co e of that even in response t y performanc devices. DO is of the resu arios, the com brakes relativ r deliberations FRA sk requires th ive to other b hough the co ot base its fi ommittee is n enue service to policies of the review ’s test results the initial em way end-of-tr field testing c taken for full n, in respons acility in Wat mber of tank results. Accor en the locomo ar puncture in ce had been ctures was pr Phase 1 recom ndicated that ) Rail Accide Supply Insti nt DOT mult mates had alr se and other f imulation app modeling ana ulation appr ince a full ve k, the commi mparisons of t. The comm o that request e of ECP bra T’s efforts di lts of testing mittee is unab e to other bra . ii e committee t raking techn mmittee soug nal conclusion ot to make re . A group of i and procedur ers). and analysis ergency perfo ain (EOT) de onducted at th application o e to a simulate ertown. car punctures ding to the re tives and the f comparison w estimated to b ovided in eith mendations it conducted a nt/Incident Re tute–Associat ivariate regre eady been inc actors contrib roach is still n lysis, the com oach sufficien tting of DOT ttee had asked the simulate ittee conclude do not instill king systems d not follow w and analysis p le to make a king systems Sincere Louis J Commi o provide find ologies or sy ht to obtain i s on that oth commendatio ndependent e es approved starts on pag rmance of trai vice and dist e Norfolk Sou f ECP brakes d train separa associated w sults available irst car in the ith conventio e approximate er modeling ca to consider ot multivariate porting Syste ion of Ameri ssion model a luded in DO utes to the d ot clear to th mittee was f tly matches ’s modeling a in its Phase d outcome o s that DOT’s sufficient con with that of ell-establish rovided by D conclusive sta . The commit ly, . Lanzerotti ttee Chair ings and con stems tested b nsights from er informatio ns about whi xperts has rev by the NASE e 13 of this re n brakes, the ributed power thern rail yar and pneumatic tion were obta ith ECP brake to the comm train, ECP bra nal brakes aug ly two punctu se. her factors th regression an m database. can Railroad s having a si T’s original a erailment and e committee. aced with ass the behavior nd simulation 1 report that th f an individua efforts to va fidence in DO pneumatic br ed standards f OT with rega tement conce tee hopes that clusions addre y DOT “bas other modelin n. Furthermor ch braking sy iewed the Ph M Report R port and is su committee con (DP) radio s d in Conway. brakes, augm ined from lab s and other br ittee, for a 10 kes are expec mented with res. No estim at might be w alysis on the F DOT indicate s (RSI-AAR) gnificant impa pproach. Nev puncture esti essing wheth of the actual approach w e department l derailment lidate its mod T’s compari aking systems or the validat rd to the mod rning the eme this letter rep ssing ed on g ap- e, the stems ase 2 eview mma- clud- ystem Simi- ented orato- aking 0-car ted to DP or ate of orthy eder- d that Tank ct on erthe- mates er the emer- as be- carry event eling son of aug- ion of eling rgen- ort is

  iii Contents ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................... v DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS ................................................................................................................................ v INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 NATIONAL ACADEMIES COMMITTEE’S STUDY ............................................................................................ 2 DOT ANALYSIS AND TEST PLAN ......................................................................................................................... 3 COMMITTEE’S PHASE 1 REPORT ....................................................................................................................... 4 DOT’s ANALYSIS AND TESTING RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 7 Brake Force Propagation in Emergency Applications, 7 Revised Analysis Results, 7 Ensuring That Testing and Analysis Are Focused on the Significant Factors, 9 Validation of Modeling and Simulation Approach, 10 COMMITTEE REVIEW OF DOT’s TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .......................................................... 10 Brake Testing, 10 Identifying Significant Factors, 11 Model Validation, 11 Conclusions on the Performance of ECP Brakes Relative to Other Braking Systems Tested by DOT, 13 APPENDIXES A STATEMENT OF TASK ................................................................................................................................... 14 B BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION: COMMITTEE ON THE REVIEW OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TESTING OF ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED PNEUMATIC BRAKES ....................................................................................................... 15 C DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT(S) OF INTEREST ....................................................................................... 19 D INFORMATION-GATHERING ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ................................................... 20 E ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS .................................................................................................... 22 F DOT ANALYSIS AND TEST PLAN TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ECP BRAKES IN REDUCING THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH-HAZARD FLAMMABLE TRAINS ............ 23 G DOT RESPONSE TO NAS LETTER REPORT ON ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED PNEUMATIC BRAKES ................................................................................................................................... 26 H TOTAL BRAKE FORCE GRAPHS FROM DOT .......................................................................................... 34 I ADDITIONAL VALIDATION OF FRA PUNCTURE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY FROM DOT ........................................................................................................................................................ 36