Mechanics' pocket memoranda; a convenient pocketbook for all persons interested in mechanical engineering, steam engineering, electrical engineering, railroad engineering, hydraulic engineering, bridge engineering, etc.,

Mode of access: Internet.

Railroad engineering; instruction paper prepared by Walter Loring Webb.

Mode of access: Internet.

Railroad engineering ... Instruction paper ...

Mode of access: Internet.

Railroad engineering; an authoritative manual of modern practice in the survey, location, and construction of railroad lines and terminals, their operation and maintenance, and the financing and economic management of railroad coporations,

Mode of access: Internet.

Cyclopedia of civil engineering; a general reference work on surveying, highway construction, railroad engineering, earthwork, steel construction, specifications, contracts, bridge engineering, masonry and reinforced concrete, municipal engineering, hydraulic engineering, river and harbor improvement, irrigation engineering, cost analysis, etc.,

Other editions have been published by the American school of correspondence, Chicago.

American railroad journal.

Imprint varies.

American railroad journal [microform]

Suspended Jan.-June 1838.

Manual of recommended practice for railway engineering: definitions of terms, designs and plans, specifications, economics of construction and maintenance [and] principles and practices. Complete to March 24, 1976.

Kept up-to-date by periodic replacement or new pages. The latest supplements have title: Manual for railway engineering (fixed properties)

Manual of recommended practice for railway engineering and maintenance of way, containing the definitions, specifications and principles of practice adopted and recommended by the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association;

Mode of access: Internet.

Bulletin - American Railway Engineering Association.

Vols. for 19 - include the directory issue of the American Railway Engineering Association.

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.

Estimating the flow rate capacity of an overturned rail carriage end exit in the presence of smoke

While incidents requiring the rapid egress of passengers from trains are infrequent, perhaps the most challenging scenario for passengers involves the evacuation from an overturned carriage subjected to fire. In this paper we attempt to estimate the flow rate capacity of an overturned rail carriage end exit. This was achieved through two full-scale evacuation experiments, in one of which the participants were subjected to non-toxic smoke. The experiments were conducted as part of a pilot study into evacuation from rail carriages. In reviewing the experimental results, it should be noted that only a single run of each trial was undertaken with a limited — though varied — population. As a result it is not possible to test the statistical significance of the evacuation times quoted and so the results should be treated as indicative rather than definitive. The carriage used in the experiments was a standard class Mark IID which, while an old carriage design, shares many features with those carriages commonly found on the British rail network. In the evacuation involving smoke, the carriage end exit was found to achieve an average flow rate capacity of approximately 5.0 persons/min. The average flow rate capacity of the exit without smoke was found to be approximately 9.2 persons/min. It was noted that the presence of smoke tended to reduce significantly the exit flow rate. Due to the nature of the experimental conditions, these flow rates are considered optimistic. Finally, the authors make several recommendations for improving survivability in rail accidents. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.