TCRP

Web-Only Document 76

Performance-Based Track Geometry, Phase 3

Abe Meddah

Mathew DeGeorge

Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (MxV Rail)

Pueblo, CO

Conduct of Research Report for TCRP Project D-07/Task 21
Submitted August 2022

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR TCRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 76

Waseem Dekelbab, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs

Gwen Chisholm Smith, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research Program

Stephan A. Parker, Senior Program Officer (retired)

Stephanie L. Campbell-Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant

Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications

Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications

Jennifer Correro, Assistant Editor

TCRP PROJECT D-07/Task 21 PANEL

Field of Operations

Anthony Bohara, HDR, Plymouth Meeting, PA (Co-Chair)

Norma De La Garza-Navarro, N2 LLC, Dripping Springs, TX (Co-Chair)

Steven Abramopaulos, Long Island Rail Road Company, Hollis, NY

Michael K. Couse, Rail AECOM Transportation, Minneapolis, MN

Nandan C. Dabhade, MTA Metro-North Railroad, New York, NY

Susan Duffy, Denver Transit Operators, Denver, CO

Max Johnson, AMTRAK, Washington, DC

Pamela J. McCombe, Parsons Brinkerhoff, Lake Mary, FL

William H. Moorhead, TRAMMCO, LLC, Smithfield, VA

James Nelson, Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc., Emeryville, CA

Jerome M. Nery, RTD Fastracks, Denver, CO

Patricia Quinn, Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, Portland, ME

Jason Ross, VHB, Watertown, MA

Rachel Schmuhl, Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit, Petaluma, CA

Joseph L. Schofer, McCormick School of Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL

Terrell Williams, FTA Liaison

Kevin Kesler, FRA Liaison

Anne D. Aylward, U.S. DOT Liaison

Louis F. Sanders, Ayers Electronic Systems, Richmond, VA

Scott Babcock, TRB Liaison

Table of Contents

Summary

Background

Research Approach

2.1 Track Geometry Comparison Analysis – 2013 vs. 2018/2020

2.2 NN Model Development and Viability of PBTG for Transit Systems

Track Geometry Comparison Analysis

3.1 Background

3.2 Track Geometry Comparison Between 2013 and 2018

3.3 Track Geometry Comparison Between 2013 and 2020

Machine Learning Simulations and Findings

4.1 Neural Network Development

4.1.1 Car body Accelerations Models

4.1.2 Wheel-Rail Forces Model

4.2 PBTG Technology and Ride Quality Assessment

4.2.1 ISO 2631-1997

4.2.2 EN 14363:2016

4.2.3 49 CFR Section 213.333

4.2.4 PBTG Viability for Transit Systems

Conclusions and Way Forward

5.1 PATH Track Geometry Comparison Analysis

5.2 PBTG NN Development and Viability for Transit System

5.3 Suggested Way Forward

List of Figures

Figure 1. PATH PA5 Passenger Car Tested in 2013

Figure 2. VDV Ride Quality Calculations for Journal Square to 33^rd Street

Figure 3. VDV Ride Quality Calculations for 33^rd Street to Journal Square

Figure 4. VDV Ride Quality Calculations for Newark to World Trade Center

Figure 5. VDV Ride Quality Calculations for World Trade Center to Newark

Figure 6. PATH Network

Figure 7. Track Geometry Comparison 2013 (Blue) vs. 2018 (Red)

Figure 8. Superelevation and Curvature Comparison 2013 vs. 2020

Figure 9. Left/Right Profile, Left/Right Alignment, Cross Level, and Gage Comparison 2013 (Blue) vs. 2020 (Red)

Figure 10. Track Geometry Parameter Statistics Comparison – 2013 (Blue) vs. 2020 (Red)

Figure 11. Geometry Left Profile Comparison – 2013 vs. 2020 (Variations in Inches)

Figure 12. Geometry Right Profile Comparison – 2013 vs. 2020 (Variations in Inches) 

Figure 13. NN Model Schematic

Figure 14. Test Driver Cab Lateral Accelerations (Blue) vs. Predicted Values (Orange)

Figure 15. Test Driver Cab Vertical Accelerations (Blue) vs. Predicted Values (Orange)

Figure 16. Test Car body Trailing Lateral Accelerations (Blue) vs. Predicted Values (Orange)

Figure 17. Test Car body Trailing Vertical Accelerations (Blue) vs. Predicted Values (Orange)

Figure 18. NUCARS Maximum Right Lead Axle L/V Ratio (Blue) vs. Predicted Values Orange)

Figure 19. NUCARS Maximum Left Lead Axle L/V Ratio (Blue) vs. Predicted Values (Orange)

Figure 20. NUCARS Minimum Right Vertical Force (Blue) vs. Predicted Values (Orange) – Lead Axle

Figure 21. NUCARS Minimum Left Vertical Force (Blue) vs. Predicted Values (Orange) – Lead Axle

List of Tables

Table 1. Ride Quality Comfort Levels

Table 2. Typical Maximum Estimated Accelerations for Vehicles (Annex L)

Table 3. 49 CFR 213.333 Criteria