Exemption petitions, etc.: Association of American Railroads,

Text

---

Federal Register: January 12, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 8)NoticesPage 1943-1945From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

DOCID:fr12ja00-115

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Association of American Railroads; (Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-1999-5104)

The Association of American Railroads (AAR) seeks a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of 49 CFR part 213, Track Safety Standards. Specifically, the petitioner seeks relief from the requirements of Sec. 213.137(d), to use flange-bearing frogs (FBF) in crossing diamonds on Classes 2 through 5 track in revenue service. Currently, the standards allow FBFs only in Class 1 track.

Specifically, Sec. 213.137(a) limits the flangeway depth measured from a plane across the wheel-bearing area of a frog on Class 1 track to not less than 1\3/8\ inch and 1\1/2\ inches on Classes 2 through 5 track. Section 213.137(d) states that where frogs are designed as flange-bearing, flangeway depth may be less than that shown for Class 1 if operated at Class 3 speeds. AAR seeks a waiver from Sec. 213.137(d) to allow the use of FBFs in Track Classes 2 through 5 in addition to Class 1.

AAR's petition states that it seeks the waiver in order to improve safety. The petition discusses the development of the recently revised federal Track Safety Standards and states that at the time of the discussions by the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (an industry committee which recommended revisions to the track standards), AAR had not completed its tests on the FBFs at higher speeds. AAR says those tests have now been completed and support application of Section 213.

The petition proposes that up to five FBF crossing diamond installations be permitted during the first six-month period with one installation subject to wheel inspection. AAR proposes that the first FBF crossing diamond for use above Class 1 speeds be installed by the industry, after FRA's approval of this waiver petition, in a location where speeds of 40 mph or greater are allowed in at least one direction over the diamond.

While the railroad industry feels that the recent Facility for Accelerated Service Testing (FAST) tests, as well as earlier tests at AAR's Transportation Technology Center (TTC), provided a much more severe test on wheels than would ever occur in revenue service, the industry said it is ``willing to monitor wheels for the first FBF crossing diamond if FRA believes such monitoring is necessary.'' Wheels of at least 10 cars (80 wheels) of one dedicated group of cars (most likely on a unit train that cycles on a pre-determined route using the diamond) would be used. A cut of cars included

[Page 1944]in a train carrying other commodities could also be used.

AAR's petition states that the wheels would be monitored by visual inspection and by taking profiles of flanges. Reports on these wheels would be forwarded to FRA three months, six months, one year and two years following installation of the FBF crossing diamond. Reports on the condition of the first diamond itself would be forwarded to FRA at the same time intervals. AAR proposes that not more than four additional FBF crossing diamonds be installed within the first six months after the initial installation. The railroads would notify FRA at least thirty days in advance of the installation of each FBF crossing diamond. This notification would include the location, train MGT, speed and train types (intermodal, mixed freight, unit coal, passenger, etc.) for each of the crossing tracks, as well as plans and specifications for the crossing diamond itself. Six months after the first FBF crossing diamond enters service, additional FBF diamonds beyond the first five could be installed. For each such location, the industry would provide FRA with the same train and diamond design information on the first five FBF crossing diamonds thirty days in advance of installation.

Each new FBF crossing diamond would be inspected on foot daily for the first five days of service and on foot weekly thereafter for the first year of service. After this, inspection would be at the normal inspection interval for track crossings in accordance with Sec. 213.235 of the Federal Track Safety Standards.

In support of its argument, AAR's petition states that there are two major safety advantages created by the use of FBF crossing diamonds instead of the conventional tread-bearing diamonds. AAR's petition also states that first advantage is the elimination of adverse effects on track, locomotives and railroad cars caused by rolling stock passing over the eight 2-inch gaps in the running rail surface of conventional diamonds where two tracks cross on the level. According to the petition, the vertical impacts at conventional crossing diamonds are the highest found in railroad service, other than in derailments. AAR's petition states that the second safety advantage is a result of the introduction of residual compressive stresses in the flange tip of the wheel due to cold working. AAR believes that this can prevent any crack opening and, therefore, retard wheel crack growth, which could lead to wheel failure. In an attachment to the petition, AAR included a technical report concerning the ``lack of significant impact loads due to the transition from tread-bearing to flange-bearing diamonds.''

AAR's petition also states that FRA currently permits the use of the FBF concept. AAR says that the proposal for FBFs is not a radical change because the concept is already in use. AAR's petition states that it has been widely used on rail transit lines now under the Federal Transit Authority's jurisdiction for more than a century, not only where tracks cross, but also for turnout frogs and, in some cases, switches. For example, FBF use is the current practice on light rail lines in Boston, Philadelphia, Toronto, New Orleans, San Francisco, Galveston, Memphis and other cities.

AAR says that FRA permits the flange-bearing concept in some cases now, and it was also permitted prior to the recent revisions to the track safety standards. FRA allows flange depth at 10 mph (15 mph passenger) to be 1\3/8\ inches (See 49 CFR 213.137(as)), even though flanges are allowed to be 1\1/2\ inches under current freight car standards. The petition goes on to state that even at speeds up to 90 mph, flangeways are only required to be 1\1/2\ inches deep, which means that with the most minute variations, flange-bearing will occur. The petition states that the track standards ``properly'' allow flanges to ride on the tops of joint bars at any speed as this condition has not been shown to cause safety problems. Yet, this condition is more severe than designed flange-bearing because of the sudden impact from the flange hitting the end of the joint bar.

The petition states that in addition, FBFs are used and have been used for over a century when regular railroad tracks cross double- flanged gantry crane rails in port facilities. AAR's petition states that this is a standard way of handling such crossings and exists at numerous ports. For example, at Savannah, Norfolk Southern locomotives and crews make dozens and perhaps hundreds of flange-bearing crossings per day and have done so for decades with no adverse safety effect or wheel problems.

AAR's petition states that FRA has no prohibition against flange- bearing in general, only with respect to frogs. According to the petition, the railroads are free to install the flange-bearing switches that exist on some transit properties (where the switch points provide guidance but do not support vertical loads) and flange-bearing weight scales (offered for sale by European manufacturers).

AAR's petition states that extensive full-scale testing of the FBF concept has been performed by them at speeds up to 80 mph to prove the safety of the FBF concept. The petition included a summary of the safety issues evaluated during the full-scale testing. AAR testing included a wheel ``torture test'' involving overheating, locked brakes and other items when the test over the flange-bearing sections took place. According to AAR's petition, the results of the tests provided convincing evidence of the safety of the concept, and the use of wheels in flange-bearing was approved by AAR's Wheel, Axle, Bearing and Lubrication (WABL) Committee in 1997.

AAR says that extensive tests also took place on locomotives. The first test was performed at AAR's Chicago Track Lab in early 1995 (This facility has since been moved to Pueblo). These tests involved 10,000 passes of a 263,000 pound car over flange-bearing sections and caused no adverse effects.

The second series of tests were performed from 1995 through 1997. These tests involved severe braking and high wheel temperatures with cars up to 315,000 pounds at 60 mph, as well as passenger and other equipment at speeds up to 80 mph. This series of tests involved both AC and DC locomotives with wheels locked and dragged over the flange- bearing sections. Some wheels with pre-existing cracks were used, and even under these severe conditions, the cracks did not grow.

Following approval of the flange-bearing concept by the WABL Committee in 1997, a decision was made to use the FAST loop for a third series of tests at TTC to test specific designs of crossing diamonds using the flange-bearing concept. These tests were much more severe than present revenue service because nearly all of the cars were 315,000 pounds with no empties, and the wheels were subjected to a frequency of diamond crossings of at least 10 times what would be expected in revenue service. According to AAR's report, in these tests, the flange-bearing diamond has lasted longer than any other diamond design. These tests also showed how FBF diamond designs could be further improved for additional durability, primarily through the elimination of flange-bearing joints.

AAR's petition states that with all of this extensive testing (documented in attachments) whose cost has run well over one million dollars, the crossing diamonds using FBFs have been shown to be suitable for revenue service. Other items of trackwork innovation, such as swing-nosed frogs and tangential geometry switch points, are developed

[Page 1945]by the industry without the need for FRA waivers. AAR states that, of course, this type of product improvement will continue with FBFs also.

In conclusion, the petition states that the granting of this waiver request concerning revenue service use of FBF crossing diamonds is necessary for implementation of a technological improvement in railway engineering.

Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.

All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number 1999- 5104) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza Level), 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9:00a.m.-5:00p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's web site at http://dms.dot.gov.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 3, 2000. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development.

FR Doc. 00-709Filed1-11-00; 8:45 amBILLING CODE 4910-06-P

---