State-of-the-art : track degradation at bridge transitions

Transition zones between bridge decks and rail tracks suffer early failure due to poor interaction between rail vehicles and sudden changes of stiffness. This has been an ongoing problem to rail industry and yet still no systematic studies appear to have been taken to maintain a gradually smoothening transmission of forces between the bridge and its approach. Differential settlement between the bridge deck and rail track in the transition zone is the fundamental issue, which negatively impacts the rail industry by causing passenger discomfort, early damage to infrastructure and vehicle components, speed reduction, and frequent maintenance cycles. Identification of mechanism of the track degradation and factors affecting is imperative to design any mitigation method for reducing track degradation rate at the bridge transition zone. Unfortunately this issue is still not well understood, after conducting a numbers of reviews to evaluate the key causes, and introducing a wide range of mitigation techniques. In this study, a comprehensive analysis of the available literature has been carried out to develop either a novel design framework or a mitigation technique for the bridge transition zone. This paper addresses three critical questions in relation to the track degradation at transition zone: (1) what are the causes of bridge transition track degradation?; (2) what are the available mitigation techniques in reducing the track degradation rate?; (3) what are the factors affecting on poor performance of the existing mitigation techniques?. It is found that the absence of soil-water response, dynamic loading response, and behaviour of geotechnical characteristics under long-term conditions in existing track transition design frameworks critically influence on the failures of existing mitigation techniques. This paper also evaluates some of the existing design frameworks to identify how each design framework addresses the track degradation at the bridge transition zone.

Low-cost railway level crossings - breaking down the barriers

Level crossing risk continues to be a significant safety concern for the security of rail operations around the world. Over the last decade or so, a third of railway related fatalities occurred as a direct result of collisions between road and rail vehicles in Australia. Importantly, nearly half of these collisions occurred at railway level crossings with no active protection, such as flashing lights or boom barriers. Current practice is to upgrade level crossings that have no active protection. However, the total number of level crossings found across Australia exceed 23,500, and targeting the proportion of these that are considered high risk (e.g. public crossings with passive controls) would cost in excess of AU$3.25 billion based on equipment, installation and commissioning costs of warning devices that are currently type approved. Level crossing warning devices that are low-cost provide a potentially effective control for reducing risk; however, over the last decade, there have been significant barriers and legal issues in both Australia and the US that have foreshadowed their adoption. These devices are designed to have significantly lower lifecycle costs compared with traditional warning devices. They often make use of use of alternative technologies for train detection, wireless connectivity and solar energy supply. This paper describes the barriers that have been encountered for the adoption of these devices in Australia, including the challenges associated with: (1) determining requisite safety levels for such devices; (2) legal issues relating to duty of care obligations of railway operators; and (3) issues of Tort liability around the use of less than fail-safe equipment. This paper provides an overview of a comprehensive safety justification that was developed as part of a project funded by a collaborative rail research initiative established by the Australian government, and describes the conceptual framework and processes being used to justify its adoption. The paper provides a summary of key points from peer review and discusses prospective barriers that may need to be overcome for future adoption. A successful outcome from this process would result in the development of a guideline for decision-making, providing a precedence for adopting low-cost level crossing warning devices in other parts of the world. The framework described in this paper also provides relevance to the review and adoption of analogous technologies in rail and other safety critical industries.

Obstacle-free range determination for rail track maintenance vehicles

Maintenance trains travel in convoy. In Australia, only the first train of the convoy pays attention to the track sig- nalization (the other convoy vehicles simply follow the preceding vehicle). Because of human errors, collisions can happen between the maintenance vehicles. Although an anti-collision system based on a laser distance meter is already in operation, the existing system has a limited range due to the curvature of the tracks. In this paper, we introduce an anti-collision system based on vision. The two main ideas are, (1) to warp the camera image into an image where the rails are parallel through a projective transform, and (2) to track the two rail curves simultaneously by evaluating small parallel segments. The performance of the system is demonstrated on an image dataset.

On-road driving studies to understand why drivers behave as they do at regional rail level crossings

Improving safety at rail level crossings is an important part of both road and rail safety strategies. While low in number, crashes between vehicles and trains at level crossings are catastrophic events typically involving multiple fatalities and serious injuries. Advances in driving assessment methods, such as the provision of on-road instrumented test vehicles with eye and head tracking, provide researchers with the opportunity to further understand driver behaviour at such crossings in ways not previously possible. This paper describes a study conducted to further understand the factors that shape driver behaviour at rail level crossings using instrumented vehicles. Twenty-two participants drove an On-Road Test Vehicle (ORTeV) on a predefined route in regional Victoria with a mix of both active (flashing lights with/without boom barriers) and passively controlled (stop, give way) crossings. Data collected included driving performance data, head checks, and interview data to capture driver strategies. The data from an integrated suite of methods demonstrated clearly how behaviour differs at active and passive level crossings, particularly for inexperienced drivers. For example, the head check data clearly show the reliance and expectancies of inexperienced drivers for active warnings even when approaching passively controlled crossings. These studies provide very novel and unique insights into how level crossing design and warnings shape driver behaviour.

Somewhere between haste and delay... Investigating the interactions of road users and pedestrians in a dynamic rail level crossing environment

There are currently 23,500 level crossings in Australia, broadly divided into one of two categories: active level crossings which are fully automatic and have boom barriers, alarm bells, flashing lights, and pedestrian gates; and passive level crossings, which are not automatic and aim to control road and pedestrianised walkways solely with stop and give way signs. Active level crossings are considered to be the gold standard for transport ergonomics when grade separation (i.e. constructing an over- or underpass) is not viable. In Australia, the current strategy is to annually upgrade passive level crossings with active controls but active crossings are also associated with traffic congestion, largely as a result of extended closure times. The percentage of time level crossings are closed to road vehicles during peak periods increases with the rise in the frequency of train services. The popular perception appears to be that once a level crossing is upgraded, one is free to wipe their hands and consider the job done. However, there may also be environments where active protection is not enough, but where the setting may not justify the capital costs of grade separation. Indeed, the associated congestion and traffic delay could compromise safety by contributing to the risk taking behaviour by motorists and pedestrians. In these environments it is important to understand what human factor issues are present and ask the question of whether a one size fits all solution is indeed the most ergonomically sound solution for today’s transport needs.