Maintenance Planning for Rail Asset Management—Current Practices (2020) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 43-58
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 43... ...
43 A P P E N D I X C Survey Results
|
From page 44... ...
Agency Name/Location System Size Estimated Track Miles 2017 Passenger Miles Traveled 2019 Passenger Miles Traveled (Millions, Calculated) 2018 Passenger Miles Traveled (Millions, Calculated)
|
From page 45... ...
Agency Name/Location 2019 Passenger Miles Traveled (Reported) NTD 2018 Actual Passenger Car Miles NTD 2018 Actual Passenger Car Miles (Millions)
|
From page 46... ...
46 Maintenance Planning for Rail Asset Management -- Current Practices Agency Name/Location Opened Opened Before or After 1980 Most Commonly Used Rail Section Tee Rail % Girder Rail % Percentage of Rails Welded Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico 2004 After 115 RE 100% 0% 100% CATS, Charlotte, NC 2007 After 100% Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN 2004 After 115 RE 100% 100% Sound Transit, Seattle, WA 2009 After 115RE 95% PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA 1984 After 115 RE, 100 ARAB with strap guard 85% 15% 85% Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ 2008 After 115 Tee rail, R-53 Girder rail 30% 70% 100% VTA, San Jose, CA 1987 After 90% 10% SDMTS, San Diego, CA 1981 After 115 RE 100% 100% RTD, Denver, CO 1994 After 100% 100% LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA 1990 After 115 lb 100% 100% BART, San Francisco, CA 1972 Before 119 pound 100% 100% CTA, Chicago, IL 1892 Before 115 RE 100% 60% WMATA, Washington, DC 1976 Before 115 RE 100% 85-90% SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA 1906 Before 115 RE 66% 34% 84% MBTA, Boston, MA 1897 Before 115 RE 99% 1% 60% NYCTA, New York, NY 1904 Before 100-8 and 115 RE 100% 52%
|
From page 47... ...
Survey Results 47 Agency Name/Location Rail Defects Found in 2019 Rail Defects Found in 2018 Defects per Track Mile 2019 Defects per Track Mile 2018 Defects per Passenger Mile 2019 Defects per Passenger Mile 2018 Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico 2 2 0.0935 0.0935 0.05202326 0.05243425 CATS, Charlotte, NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sound Transit, Seattle, WA 4 2 0.0853 0.0426 0.02440563 0.01252131 PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA 8 12 0.1527 0.229 0.28338527 0.42716079 Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ 1 0 0.0177 0 0.00955336 0 VTA, San Jose, CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 SDMTS, San Diego, CA 2 0 0.0187 0 0.00927272 0 RTD, Denver, CO 0 45 0 0.3744 0 0.24856167 LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA 3 1 0.0143 0.0048 0.00501761 0.0014434 BART, San Francisco, CA 0 0 0 0 0 0 CTA, Chicago, IL 120 84 0.5355 0.3748 0.09304202 0.06298665 WMATA, Washington, DC 133 80 0.5708 0.3433 0.09685392 0.06118255 SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA 96 109 0.3771 0.4282 0.23794152 0.26119336 MBTA, Boston, MA 36 95 0.1229 0.3242 0.05012283 0.12864886 NYCTA, New York, NY 634 683 0.9534 1.0271 0.05880851 0.06562805
|
From page 48... ...
Distribution of Defects Agency Name/Location Detail Fracture Vertical Split Heads Horizontal Split Heads Joint Defects Weld Defects Engine Burn Defects Other (Number) Other (Please Identify)
|
From page 49... ...
Distribution of Defects (%) Agency Name/Location Detail Fracture Vertical Split Heads Horizontal Split Heads Joint Defects Weld Defects Engine Burn Defects Other Other (Please Identify)
|
From page 50... ...
Distribution of Defect Groups Agency Name/Location Detail Fracture, Vertical Split Head, Horizontal Split Head Joint and Weld Defects Engine Burn, Other Method of Finding Defects # of Broken Rails Broken Rails/Track Mile Broken Rails/Defect Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico UT 0 0 CATS, Charlotte, NC UT 0 Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN 9 0.205 Sound Transit, Seattle, WA 95.0% 5.0% 0.0% Track inspection crews 0 0 PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA 12.5% 25.0% 62.5% UT 0 0 Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ NDT 7 0.124 7 VTA, San Jose, CA UT and hi rail SDMTS, San Diego, CA 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% UT 0 RTD, Denver, CO UT 2 0.017 LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% UT 0 0 BART, San Francisco, CA CTA, Chicago, IL 11.7% 38.3% 50.0% UT 22 0.098 0.183333333 WMATA, Washington, DC 13.5% 31.6% 54.9% UT, rail bound and hand testing 18 0.077 0.135338346 SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA 1.1% 47.8% 51.1% UT, track inspector, signal 6 0.024 0.0625 MBTA, Boston, MA 47.5% 28.2% 24.3% UT, track inspector, signal 4 0.014 0.111111111 NYCTA, New York, NY 46.4% 46.1% 7.5% UT, video, geometry inspection, service breaks 52 0.078 0.082018927
|
From page 51... ...
% Defects Found By For Rail Break Found by Track Circuits, Distribution of Miles Equipped With Agency Name/Location Ultrasonic Testing Eddy Current or Other NDT Track Circuits Visual Inspection by Track Inspector Other (Please Identify) Double Rail Track Circuit (Broken Rail Detection in Both Rails)
|
From page 52... ...
Does Agency Own Test Equipment? Agency Name/Location Broken Rail Derailments in Last 5 Years (See Survey for Details)
|
From page 53... ...
Survey Results 53 Agency Name/Location Do You Contract Inspection Services? Testing Contractor (If Available)
|
From page 54... ...
Frequency of Testing # of tests performed Agency Name/Location Frequency of UT testing Frequency of Other NDT Frequency of Visual Inspection Frequency of UT Testing/Year Frequency of Other NDT/Year Frequency of Visual Inspection/Week Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico Annual On every field weld performed 2x per week 1 Conditional 2 CATS, Charlotte, NC Annual None 1x per week 1 0 1 Metro Transit, Minneapolis, MN Annual Only if surface defect found by visual inspection 2x per week 1 Conditional 2 Sound Transit, Seattle, WA Annual 1 PAAC, Pittsburgh, PA Annual Ride 1x per week, walk 1x per week 1 2 Valley Metro, Phoenix, AZ Annual 2x per week 1 2 VTA, San Jose, CA Annual Weekly/Monthly 1 1 SDMTS, San Diego, CA Joint territory once every quarter, LRT and only one freight movement weekly tested annually Optical rail measurement, post-rail grinding 2x per week 1 Conditional 2 RTD, Denver, CO Annual 2x per week 1 2 LA Metro, Los Angeles, CA Annual Hi-rail or walked weekly 1 1 BART, San Francisco, CA 2x per year 2x per week 2 2 CTA, Chicago, IL Annual None 2x per week 1 0 2 WMATA, Washington, DC 3x annually, 2x with owned equipment, 1x by contractor 2x per week, camera 1x per year 3 1 2 SEPTA, Philadelphia, PA 2x per year 1x per week 2 1 MBTA, Boston, MA 2x per year New stringers - as welded, all thermite welds before revenue service is run 2 3 NYCTA, New York, NY 4x per year subway, 1x per year outside tracks (4x per week) 3x annual video inspection 2x per week 4 3 2
|
From page 55... ...
What Factors Affect Test Frequency? Agency Name/Location Method of Determining Test Frequency Defect History Age of Rail Traffic Environmental Conditions Characteristics of Rail Track Support Conditions Other Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico FTA Yes CATS, Charlotte, NC APTA rail transit insp.
|
From page 56... ...
Major Challenges and Constraints for Testing Agency Name/Location Are You Familiar With Risk-Based Scheduling of UT? Have You Adopted RiskBased Scheduling of UT?
|
From page 57... ...
Survey Results 57 Do You Follow Any External Regulations or Procedures? Agency Name/Location Internal Standards for UT or Other Rail NDT to Include Frequency of Testing?
|
From page 58... ...
Agency Name/Location How Agency Measures Effectiveness of Defect Inspection/Testing Objective Measures Used Willing to Participate Further as a Case Study? Notes Tren Urbano, Puerto Rico Key performance indicators (see survey)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.