- 1 © transportation technology center, inc., a subsidiary of the association of american...

<Global Rail Freight> - 1© Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads, 2007

Using Technology to Protect the Railway Asset

Global Rail Freight Conference

New Delhi, March 22, 2007Dr. A. J. Reinschmidt

© TTCI/AAR, 2007, Global Rail Freight p2®

TTCI and TTC: Two Different Things

TTC: The Facility

TTCI: The Company


The Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

Our Landlord

• Our OwnerOur Owner• Our OwnerOur Owner

A S S O C IAT IO NO F A M E R IC A N

R A IL R O A D S


AAR - Association of American Railroads

Represent 8 class 1 freight railroads (200,000 mile of trackage, 2.1 trillion ton-kilometers Freight Haulage)

Annual Revenues - $36 Billion dollars

Public policy advocacy

Network efficiency and interchange by electronic information exchange

AA not-for-profit association, established in 1934not-for-profit association, established in 1934


TTCI: The Company

Wholly owned subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads

Headquartered at TTC

Operated by our own management team

Guided by our own Board of Directors

Charged with developing TTC to become the worlds leading railway research testing and training facility


U.S. Freight Intercity Modal Market Share

“Other” for ton-miles is less than 0.5%. Source: Eno Transportation Foundation

RRs42%

Trucks28%

Water13%

Pipeline17%

Trucks80%

RRs10%

Ton-Miles

Revenue

Water1% Other

7%

Pipeline2%


Class I Railroad Traffic in 2005(Gross Freight Revenue)

Source: AAR *Estimated. Some intermodal revenue is also included in individual commodities.

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Coal - $9.4 bilChemicals - $5.4 bil

Transportation equipment - $4.0 bil

Farm products (mainly grain) - $3.6 bilFood - $3.3 bil

Lumber & wood - $2.3 bilPulp & paper - $2.0 bil

Primary metal products (e.g., steel) - $1.7 bilStone, clay & glass products (e.g., cement) - 1.5 bil

Nonmetallic minerals (e.g., sand, gravel) - $1.3 bil

Intermodal* - $10.1 bil


17%

18%

19%

20%

21%

22%

23%

24%

25%

26%

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Coal Intermodal

*Data for BNSF, CSX, KCS, NS, and UP Source: railroad financial reports

Intermodal and Coal as a % of Revenue*

Intermodal is Now the Top Class of U.S. Freight Rail Traffic


-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

Source: AAR Weekly Railroad Traffic

Carloads Intermodal

Railroads Are Moving More Traffic Today Than Ever Before

U.S. Rail Traffic: % Change From Previous

Year –Q1-01 to Q2-06

© TTCI/AAR, 2007, Global Rail Freight p10® Source: AAR

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

1964 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005

Staggers Act Passed Oct. 1980

U.S. Rail Ton-Mile Growth: 1964-2005(Index 1981 = 100)


1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.0

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Source: AAR

U.S. Class I Tons Originated(billions)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Railroad Traffic Density is Rising

Source: AAR

Millions of Class I Ton-Miles Per Mile of Road Owned


0102030405060708090

100110

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Accidents Per Million Train-Miles

Injuries & Illness Per 100 Employees

Loss & Damage as % of Revenue

Source: FRA, AAR

RR Safety Trends: 1980-2005 (1980 = 100)

Railroads are Safe and Getting Safer


Cases With Days Away From Work, Job Transfer, or Restriction Per 100 Full-Time Workers - 2004

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

RRs Water Transport.Grocery Stores Agric. Air Trans.

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Avg. All Private

Industry

Constr. Avg. Mfg.

Trucks

RRs Are Safer Than Other Industries


$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$180,000

$200,000

1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005

Class I Spending* on Infrastructure & EquipmentPer Mile of Road Owned

*Capital spending + maintenance expenses - depreciation Source: AAR

Trend line

Railroads Have Been Increasing Spending for a Long Time...


...And Are Poised to Spend Even More

$5.7$5.9

$6.2 $6.4

$8.3

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006e

Class I RR Capital Expenditures($ Billions)

e – AAR estimate Source: AAR


0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, AAR

Class I RRs

Avg. All Mfg.

Food

Petrol. & Coal

Prod.

RRs Have Far Higher Capital Expenditures Than Other Industries

Capital Expenditures as a % of Revenue: Avg. 1995-2004

Computers

Wood Prod.

Transp.Equip.

ChemicalsPaperNonmet. Minerals

Plastics


EFFICIENCYRailroad Spending TrendsTotal Spending = 37.7 Billion

Millions $

Way & Structures$8,795

Equipment$8,087

Transportation$16,203

General & Administrative

$4,586

Source: Class I railroad (R-1 data) 2004. Spending is independent of depreciation expense.


Railroad Spending TrendsRoadway (MOW) Track Related Spending

Millions $

Rail & Track Material $2,034

Ties $1,164

Signals & Interlockers, $722

Ballast $613

Bridges $391

Grade Crossings $38

Administration $273

Roadway $244

Tunnels & Subways $8

Source: Class I railroad (R-1 data) 2004.


Rail and Crossties Laid

Year New Rail (tons) Crossties (thousands)

1995 443,084 12,784

1996 491,488 14,269

1997 549,726 13,363

1998 653,612 12,185

1999 698,713 12,147

2000 689,992 11,454

2001 623,866 11,383

2002 584,942 13,416

2003 572,828 13,777

2004 471,426 13,813


Anatomy of Track Strength

Typical Mainline Track

SpecialTrackwork

3091-Davis-1

Curve Spirals

TrackTransitions

BondedIJs

Track onBridges

NewConstruction

PoorFoundations


Anatomy of Train Loads

TangentTrack

SteeringTrucks

Track Transitions

3091-Davis-2

Heavy Curves

Bad Actor Trucks

SpecialTrackwork


Strengthen all track (e.g. Rail Steels)

Methods of Reducing the Stress State

ForcesFrom Train

S tren g tho f T ra ck

Potential Problems

Fix weak pointsBetter (Dynamically Designed) trackMatch track strength to train loads



ForcesFrom Train


Potential Problems

Fix weak points (e.g. Rail Welding)Better (Dynamically Designed) trackMatch track strength to train loads

Strengthen all track


Strengthen all track (Capital Intensive)


Fix weak pointsBetter (Dynamically Designed) track (e.g. STW)Match track strength to train loads

Potential Problems


ForcesFrom Train


Strengthen all track (Capital Intensive)


Fix weak pointsBetter (Dynamically Designed) trackMatch track strength to train loads (e.g. TOR)

ForcesFrom Train

Strengthof Track

Where train is applying high forces, track is strong.


Inspections with Existing Technologies

Acoustic Bearing Detector (TADS) Smart HBD’s

Machine Vision Based Inspection Systems (FactIS)

Truck Curving (TPD) High Lateral Loads High L/V Ratio High Angle of Attack


Truck Performance Detector Site

N.A. Freight – 18 TPD Installations


Trackside Acoustic Detector Site

N.A. Freight – 8 TADS Installations


Example: Inner Ring or Cone Defect

Sound file for cone defect

Time history and frequency spectrogram


Sound file for cup defect


Example: Outer Ring or Cup Defect


Sound file for roller defect

Example: Roller Defect



Wheel Profile Condition Monitoring

3 FactISTM Sites in North America


Cracked Wheel Detection Problems: Annual costs related to cracked

railroad wheels is approximately $24 million

Thermal cracks and shattered rim cracks account for many derailments

Problem continues to grow under HAL

Goals:

Develop a wayside inspection system

Reduce derailments resulting from broken wheels

Develop new wheel alloys

Accomplishments to date

Developed and demonstrated effectiveness of a wayside cracked wheel detection system

Hospital and FAST train tests


Conceptual OperationConceptual OperationCracked Wheel Detection Wayside Tracking SystemCracked Wheel Detection Wayside Tracking System

SRI 6A Cracked Wheel Detection


SRI 6A Cracked Wheel Detection

Actual OperationActual OperationCracked Wheel Detection Wayside Tracking SystemCracked Wheel Detection Wayside Tracking System


Pattern RecognitionPattern Recognition

Cracked Wheel Detection - Results

Service Flaw Service Flaw IndicationsIndications

Artificial Flaw Artificial Flaw IndicationsIndications

Artificial and Service Artificial and Service Flaw IndicationsFlaw Indications

A-ScanA-Scan Electronic Strip ChartElectronic Strip Chart


Problem:Problem:Derailments due to broken axles have

increased over the past 4 to 5 yearsApproximately 20 broken axles per

year in the 2000’s as compared to 4 in the late 1990’s

Problem Size is $15M+ Goals:Goals:

Determine the ability of currently designed 286,000-lb Class F axles to survive in the railroad environment

Reduce/eliminate derailments caused by broken axles

Research ApproachResearch ApproachMulti-faceted program focused on

both prevention and detectionPrevention – New axle designs?Detection – Laser ultrasonics

HAL Axle Program


Cracked Axle DetectionCracked Axle Detection

Wheel SensorsWheel Sensors Air-Coupled Air-Coupled TransducersTransducers Indexing MirrorsIndexing Mirrors

Turning MirrorsTurning Mirrors

Beam Turning Beam Turning and Shapingand Shaping

Laser HeadsLaser Heads


Prototype System

No Crack Present

Crack Present

Direct Wave

Direct Wave

Reflected Wave

Time (microseconds)

Time (microseconds)

Am

plit

ude

Am

plit

ude


1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 14000

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 13000

50

100

150

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 16000

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Cracked Axle Inspection System

Crack Condition Crack located 89 mm from axle centerline Calculated primary wave for a 38-inch wheel is

~1265 microseconds Crack reflection expected at 1339

microseconds Crack reflection observed at 1340

microseconds

Optic Base Station

No Crack Condition

Primary wave detected at ~1130 microseconds

Calculated primary wave for a 36-inch wheel is ~1145 microseconds

No crack reflection present

Beam Expander

Axle Inspection Station

Direct Wave

Direct Wave

Direct Wave

Direct Wave

Reflected Wave

Reflected Wave


ATSI & EHMS Steering Committee – Mission

Provide overall leadership and governance for the industry’s Advanced Technology Safety Initiative and Equipment Health Management Systems (EHMS)


ATSI & EHMS – “Changing Finders into Fixers”

Develop shared responsibility for car condition Railroads Private Car Owners Maintenance Responsible Parties

Use detector data to identify distressed cars and assess level of distress

Issue notifications to maintenance reponsibile party to affect repair


2006 Accomplishments

Worked in conjunction with the AAR’s Equipment Engineering Committee & the SRI Program to develop criteria for truck hunting performance

Developed consensus on 2007 – 2008 detector focus Bearings – Acoustic detection and temperature

trending Vision systems for wheel profile and brake shoes Imbalanced / overloaded car detection


Progress: High Impact Load Wheels – 3-year Trend

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

90-140kips 140+kips


Progress: Estimated Truck Hunting Alerts

283177

351

484

0100200300400500600700800900

Estimated # of trucks alarmed between01-Mar-04 and 28-Feb-05 (Approx # of

cars)

Estimated # of trucks alarmed between01-Jan-05 and 31-Dec-05 (Approx # of

cars)

Once over 0.65 ≤ |Hunting Index| Twice over 0.50 ≤ |Hunting Index|

767

528


2007 Activities and Focus Areas

Rule 88 Examination When in the car owners control, are all appropriate

conditions identified and repaired? Home Shopping

How can the industry work together to efficiently identify and remediate cars that need extensive repair?

Interface with Other AAR Activities How can ATSI & EHMS support other related AAR

initiatives?


ATSI & EHMS Technology Roadmap

Truck Performance Data in InteRRIS® – ’02 Remediation

recommendation – late ‘07

Wheel Profile Data in InteRRIS® – late ’06 Remediation

recommendation – ’07 Rules not specific to wayside

detection systems

Overload / Imbalance Base data in InteRRIS® – ‘01

Additional work needed for alarming (SRI Program in ’07)

Remediation recommendations – ‘09


ATSI & EHMS Technology Roadmap

Hot / Cold Wheel Data in InteRRIS® – Ready to accept data Remediation recommendation – ‘09

Brake Shoe – Visual Data in InteRRIS® – ’08 Remediation recommendations – prior to ’10 Rules not specific to wayside detection

systems

Vision Systems Data in InteRRIS® (beyond WPMS) – ’08 Remediation recommendation – ’10


ATSI & EHMS Roadmap

Technology Driven Train Inspection Data in InteRRIS® – Early ’08 Remediation recommendation – ‘11

Cracked Axle Data in InteRRIS® – ‘10 (est) Remediation recommendation – prior to

’11

Cracked Wheel Data in InteRRIS® – ’09 Remediation recommendations – ‘13


ATSI vs TDTI“Changing Finders to Fixers” ATSI

Focus on interchange process Develops shared responsibility for car condition

RailroadsPrivate Car OwnersMaintenance Responsible Parties

Uses detector data to identify distressed cars and assess level of distress

Issues notifications to maintenance responsible party to affect repairs


ATSI vs TDTI“Changing Finders to Fixers”

TDTI Focus on regulatory revision Uses detector data to certify car health Vehicle health report in lieu of visual

inspection Car health sufficient to make it to

destination


InteRRIS® - EHMS Review

Functions Contrasts Customers Progress Issues


Functions: Understanding InteRRIS®

Industry Objectives for InteRRIS®

Centralize railroad detector data for mutual sharing

Support preventive and predictive maintenance planning through data availability [provide a commercial service] to private car owners

InteRRIS® was designed for and is built to support industry vehicle health monitoring initiatives ATSI adopted InteRRIS® because it readily

provided the initially required functionality without modification

ATSI was initiated in 6 months by using existing systems


Functions: How InteRRIS® meets industry requirements (current/future)

- 1 © transportation technology center, inc., a subsidiary of the association of american...

Documents