Railway Age April 2019 by Railway Age

April 2019

w w w. r a i lwaya g e .c o m

AILWAY GE

CHALLEN

s s , e Ne w r g n Fa co

S e r v i n g t h e r a i lway i n d u s t r y s i n c e 1 8 5 6

BIG YEAR FOR LRT

Affordable Rail Transit for North America

RAILINC FREIGHT CAR REPORT railwayage.com

Eight Years August of Growth 2017 // Railway Age 1

PR Uptime The power of data – at your fingertips. Monitor nearly 4,000+ data streams flowing from each locomotive in your fleet. The result? Increase locomotive reliability, streamline maintenance, improve mission success and boost productivity.

More Productivity. Less Downtime. That’s Progress.

+1 800-476-6789 • progressrail.com

190040

@Progress_Rail •

@progressrail

AILWAY GE

JUNE 2018 APRIL 2019

12 FEATURES

Legislative Report

LRT: A Growth Market

23 25 27 30 34

It’s all-new on Capitol Hill

North America expanding fast

Legacy LRT, New LRVs Tackling technical issues

TOD in California San Jose case study

Data Analytics Safety-improvement apps

Railinc Railcar Report Tracking eight years of growth

TTCI R&D

DEPARTMENTS 4 6 7 36 36 36 37 38 38 39

Industry Indicators Industry Outlook Market People 100 Years Ago Events Products Classified Professional Directory Advertising Index

NEWS/COLUMNS 2 8 10 11 35 40

From the Editor Update Watching Washington Financial Edge Perspective Short Line/Regional Perspective

On the Cover: Ceiling of the U.S. Capitol Rotunda Photo: Shutterstock

Tread-conditioning brake shoes

Railway Age, USPS 449-130, is published monthly by the Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corporation, 55 Broad St., 26th Fl., New York, NY 10004. Tel. (212) 620-7200; FAX (212) 633-1863. Vol. 220, No. 4. Subscriptions: Railway Age is sent without obligation to professionals working in the railroad industry in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. However, the publisher reserves the right to limit the number of copies. Subscriptions should be requested on company letterhead. Subscription pricing to others for Print and/or Digital versions: $100.00 per year/$151.00 for two years in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico; $139.00 per year/$197.00 for two years, foreign. Single Copies: $36.00 per copy in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico/$128.00 foreign All subscriptions payable in advance. COPYRIGHT© 2016 Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corporation. All rights reserved. Contents may not be reproduced without permission. For reprint information contact PARS International Corp., 102 W. 38th Street, 6th floor, New York, N.Y. 10018, Tel.: 212-221-9595; Fax: 212-221-9195. Periodicals postage paid at New York, NY, and additional mailing offices. Canada Post Cust.#7204564; Agreement #41094515. Bleuchip Int’l, PO Box 25542, London, ON N6C 6B2. Address all subscriptions, change of address forms and correspondence concerning subscriptions to Subscription Dept., Railway Age, PO Box 1407 Cedar Rapids, IA. 52406-1407, Or call toll free (US Only) 1-800-553-8878 (CANADA/INTL) 1-319-364-6167. Printed at Cummings Printing, Hooksett, N.H. ISSN 0033-8826 (print); 2161-511X (digital).

railwayage.com

April 2019 // Railway Age 1

FROM THE EDITOR

AILWAY GE Subscriptions: 800-895-4389

Remembering Joe Boardman

oe Boardman spent most of his life in transportation, in his home state of New York and in Washington, D.C. as Federal Railroad Administrator and President of Amtrak. In the latter role, where he spent eight years, we named him Railroader of the Year, in 2014. Joe died suddenly on March 7 of a stroke. He was only 70, a relatively young age these days. As soon as word got out in the industry, the rememberances began flowing. Suffice to say that Joe touched a lot of people’s lives, in a very good way. I’d like to share a few tributes that came across my desk about this affable man with a heart as large as his physical presence. “When I think of Joe, I always see his mustache and smile, representing his state and the States for Passenger Rail at a meeting of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Rail Transportation, discussing the Bush Administration’s ideas about intercity passenger rail reform with equal amounts of skepticism and respect with a young, unproven FRA Administrator from Texas. He was as imposing as a grizzly bear, but his spirit was Phil Harris in Disney’s Jungle Book: warm, winsome, cheerful.”—former FRA Administrator Allan Rutter. “Joe was a great American who cared. He always had the best for all of the nation in his heart. He made a difference in the lives of people who knew him and what he did for all of us. He continued after he

retired to make sure that Amtrak was the best that it could be and that the Amtrak’s National Network was not abandoned. We will always remember what he accomplished during his life.”—La Junta, Colo., City Manager Rick Klein. “Joe’s passion for passenger rail and public service was infectious to all who knew him. His voice supporting rail is a big loss to our industry. He leaves a legacy of love and emotion for his family, staff and rail passengers.”—Cliff Eby, former FRA Deputy Administrator. “Joe’s high standards and ethical leadership helped create a great working environment at the FRA. He was a great boss, and I loved working for him.”— American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association Senior Vice President Safety and Regulatory Policy and former FRA Associate Administrator for Safety Jo Strang. Finally, from Joe himself, from our Railroader of the Year interview: “Over the years, I’ve learned that you have to forgive. I know that if I don’t forgive I won’t be forgiven. I’ll make lots of mistakes. As you grow up, you do make mistakes, and one of the difficulties with the culture we’re in today is that we don’t generate a lot of forgiveness.” Requiescat in pace, Joe. And thanks for those memorable trips aboard the Beech Grove business car.

ARTHUR J. McGINNIS, Jr. President and Chairman JONATHAN CHALON Publisher jchalon@sbpub.com WILLIAM C. VANTUONO Editor-in-Chief wvantuono@sbpub.com ANDREW CORSELLI Managing Editor acorselli@sbpub.com PAUL CONLEY Engineering Editor pconley@sbpub.com Contributing Editors: David Peter Alan, Roy Blanchard, Jim Blaze, Alfred E. Fazio, Bruce Kelly, Ron Lindsey, Ryan McWilliams, David Nahass, Jason H. Seidl, David Thomas, John Thompson, Frank N. Wilner Art Director: Nicole D’Antona Graphic Designer: Aleza Leinwand Corporate Production Director: Mary Conyers Digital Ad Operations Associate: Kevin Fuhrmann Production Director: Eduardo Castaner Marketing Director: Erica Hayes Conference Director: Michelle Zolkos Circulation Director: Maureen Cooney Western Offices 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1910, Chicago, IL 60603 312-683-0130; Fax: 312-683-0131 Managing Editor, Railway Track & Structures Kyra Senese ksenese@sbpub.com

WILLIAM C. VANTUONO Editor-in-Chief

Railway Age, descended from the American Rail-Road Journal (1832) and the Western Railroad Gazette (1856) and published under its present name since 1876, is indexed by the Business Periodicals Index and the Engineering Index Service. Name registered in U.S. Patent Office and Trade Mark Office in Canada. Now indexed in ABI/Inform. Change of address should reach us six weeks in advance of next issue date. Send both old and new addresses with address label to Subscription Department, Railway Age, PO Box 1407, Cedar Rapids, IA. 52406-1407, or call toll free (US Only) 1-800-553-8878 (CANADA/ INTL) 1-319-364-6167. Post Office will not forward copies unless you provide extra postage. Photocopy rights: Where necessary, permission is granted by the copyright owner for the libraries and others registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) to photocopy articles herein for the flat fee of $2.00 per copy of each article. Payment should be sent directly to CCC. Copying for other than personal or internal reference use without the express permission of Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corp. is prohibited. Address requests for permission on bulk orders to the Circulation Director. Railway Age welcomes the submission of unsolicited manuscripts and photographs. However, the publishers will not be responsible for safekeeping or return of such material. Member of:

SBP 2 Railway Age // April 2019

Editorial and Executive Offices Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corp. 55 Broad Street, 26th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212-620-7200; Fax: 212-633-1863 Website: www.railwayage.com

SIMMONS-BOARDMAN PUBLISHING CORPORATION

International Offices 46 Killigrew Street, Falmouth, Cornwall TR11 3PP, United Kingdom Telephone: 011-44-1326-313945 Fax: 011-44-1326-211576 International Editors David Briginshaw, db@railjournal.co.uk Keith Barrow, kb@railjournal.co.uk Kevin Smith, ks@railjournal.co.uk David Burroughs, dburroughs@railjournal.co.uk Customer Service: 800-895-4389 Reprints: PARS International Corp. 253 West 35th Street 7th Floor New York, NY 10001 212-221-9595; fax 212-221-9195 curt.ciesinski@parsintl.com railwayage.com

Keeping cities in motion takes ingenuity To modernize and revitalize cities, we make transportation more efficient, intelligent, and safe while lowering environmental impact and creating a better traveler experience. Working with cities from coast to coast, ingenuity from Siemens is fulfilling this need and helping to move America forward with knowhow, innovation, and reliable and responsible partnering. From Portland, Ore. where innovations improve efficiency in urban transportation systems to New York Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s subway system increasing capacity on impacted infrastructure.

usa.siemens.com/mobility

Industry Indicators Railroads Wait for the Coming of Spring “On the surface, rail traffic in February 2019 wasn’t very good,” the Association of American Railroads noted in late March. “Total carloads were down 2.7% over February 2018, just the second monthly decline in the past year; 12 of the 20 carload categories were down, the most since January 2018; and intermodal was down 0.9%, its first decline in two years. But, like last month, weather likely played a significant but impossible-to-measure-precisely role in February — e.g., higher-than-normal rain and snow in California, with mudslides and track washouts; high winds, extreme cold and record snowfalls, etc. Hopefully, the coming of spring will mean fewer weather-related challenges.”

Railroad employment, Class I linehaul carriers, FEB. 2019 (% change from FEB. 2018)

TRAFFIC ORIGINATED CARLOADS

MAJOR U.S. RAILROADS by Commodity

Total employees: 145,800 % change from FEB. 2018: –1.00%

Transportation (train and engine) 61,848 (–1.00%)

FEB. ’19

FEB. ’18

% CHANGE

Grain Farm Products ex. Grain Grain Mill Products Food products Chemicals Petroleum & Petroleum Products Coal Primary Forest Products Lumber and Wood Products Pulp and Paper Products Metallic Ores Coke Primary Metal Products Iron & Steel Scrap Motor Vehicles & Parts Crushed Stone, Sand, & Gravel Nonmetallic Minerals Stone, Clay & Glass Products Waste & Nonferrous Scrap All Other Carloads

84,032 2,980 35,829 23,174 128,606 48,697 321,419 4,691 12,702 22,444 13,852 13,587 38,938 15,379 69,084 84,088 15,351 27,091 14,036 23,998

83,867 3,257 38,091 24,492 130,501 40,428 344,364 4,509 14,079 21,279 15,478 14,812 37,560 15,333 70,221 90,278 14,407 27,119 13,397 24,744

0.2% -8.5% -5.9% -5.4% -1.5% 20.5% -6.7% 4.0% -9.8% 5.5% -10.5% -8.3% 3.7% 0.3% -1.6% -6.9% 6.6% -0.1% 4.8% -3.0%

Total U.S. CarLoadS

999,978

1,028,216

-2.7%

296,788

298,145

-1.0%

1,296,766

1,326,361

-1.0%

Executives, Officials, and Staff Assistants 8,127 (–1.00%)

CANADIAN RAILROADS

Professional and Administrative 11,696 (–1.00%)

COMBINED U.S./CANADA RR

Maintenance-of-Way and Structures 31,579 (+1.00%) Maintenance of Equipment and Stores 26,981 (-1.00%) Transportation (other than train & engine) 5,569 (–1.00%) Source: Surface Transportation Board

EMPLOYMENT REMAINS RELATIVELY FLAT Like January 2019, there wasn’t very much change in Class I railroad employment figures in this year’s second month from the previous one. All categories except for one, Maintenance-of-Way and Structures, declined a miniscule 1%, and that category rose a mere 1%. However, as Railway Age reported last month, that may not last very long, as major personnel cuts are in the works at carriers like Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, both of which are moving to a Precision Scheduled Railroading operating model.

4 Railway Age // April 2019

Four WEEKS ENDING MARCH 2, 2019

total CANADIAN carloads

Intermodal

four WEEKS ENDING MARCH 2, 2019

MAJOR U.S. RAILROADS by Commodity

FEB. ’19

FEB. ’18

% CHANGE

99,831 994,668 1,094,499

96,455 1,007,557 1,104,012

3.5% -1.3% -0.9%

0 259,257 259,257

4,360 263,906 319,014

-100.0% -1.8% -3.4%

Trailers Containers

99,831 1,253,925

100,815 1,271,463

-1.0% -1.0%

TOTAL COMBINED UNITS

1,353,756

1,372,278

-1.0%

Trailers Containers TOTAL UNITS

CANADIAN RAILROADS Trailers Containers TOTAL UNITS

COMBINED U.S./CANADA RR

Source: Rail Time Indicators, Association of American Railroads

railwayage.com

TOTAL U.S./CANADIAN CARLOADS, FEB. 2019 VS. FEB. 2018

1,296,766 FEBRUARY 2019

AILWAY GE

1,326,361 FEBRUARY 2018

Short Line And Regional Traffic Index CARLOADS

by Commodity

ORIGINATED FEB. ’19

ORIGINATED FEB. ’18

% CHANGE

46,982 18,452 20,113 9,868 22,221 6,699 8,552 2,640 16,005 8,898 2,761 2,198 16,452 11,115 46,036 8,792 68,980

44,211 19,862 23,142 10,294 22,597 5,845 9,356 2,966 15,529 9,175 1,884 2,256 16,255 11,217 38,857 9,295 76,893

6.3% -7.1% -13.1% -4.1% -1.7% 14.6% -8.6% -11.0% 3.1% -3.0% 46.5% -2.6% 1.2% -0.9% 18.5% -5.4% -10.3%

Chemicals Coal Crushed Stone, Sand & Gravel Food and Kindred Products Grain Grain Mill Products Lumber and Wood Products Metallic Ores Metals and Products Motor Vehicles and Equipment Nonmetallic Minerals Petroleum Products Pulp, Paper and Allied Products Stone, Clay and Glass Products Trailers / Containers Waste and Scrap Materials All Other Carloads

average weekly U.S. Rail Carloads: all commodities (not seasonally adjusted) 278,000 2018

270,000 262,000

2019

ARE YOU A RAILROAD OR SUPPLIER SEARCHING FOR JOB CANDIDATES?

254,000 246,000

2017

238,000

Visit http://bit.ly/railjobs

230,000

To place a job posting, contact: Jeanine Acquart

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Data are average weekly originations for each month, are not seasonally adjusted, do not include intermodal, and do not include the U.S. operations of CN and CP. Source: AAR

railwayage.com

212-620-7211 jacquart@sbpub.com

April 2019 // Railway Age 5 RA_JobBoard_1/3Vertical.indd 1

8/17/17 10:59 AM

Industry Outlook AAR Pushes STB for Cost-benefit Analyses Regime

FTA Stymies Gateway Tunnels with “Medium-low” Rating The $13 billion Hudson River Tunnel project, aimed at building two new rail tunnels between New York and New Jersey, is again facing funding problems after federal authorities announced a rating that means the project remains “ineligible for critical grant funding.” The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) released ratings March 15 for infrastructure projects throughout the U.S. Those ratings determine what funding sources are available to any given project. FTA rated the Hudson River Tunnel project “medium-low,” which gives the project the same rating the FTA gave it months ago. FTA guidelines mandate that projects with a medium-low rating are ineligible for Capital Investment Grants. The tunnel project partners—New Jersey Transit (NJT), the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), and Amtrak—have been working to secure such grants. The project is part of the Northeast Corridor (NEC) Gateway Program, which the FTA defines as “several strategic rail infrastructure investments intended to improve current service and create new capacity.” PANYNJ, working with the Gateway Program Development Corporation 6 Railway Age // April 2019

(GPDC), NJT and Amtrak, proposed the construction of a new two-track tunnel along the Northeast Corridor from the Bergen Palisades in New Jersey to Manhattan that would directly serve Penn Station in New York. The project includes three primary elements: the Hudson Yards rightof-way preservation project, the Hudson Tunnel, and rehabilitation and modernization of Amtrak’s existing North River tunnels, opened in 1910 by the Pennsylvania Railroad as part of its massive New York Improvements Program. Amtrak since the mid-1970s has owned the existing 109-year-old tunnels, with NJ Transit and Amtrak operating about 450 trains each weekday through them. New Jersey and New York both intend to rely on long-term federal loans of between $6 billion and $7 billion to fund 50% of the project. The states would expect the federal government to finance the other half of the costs with grants. USDOT believes the states are asking for too much federal funding, and on March 15 said that the most recent financial plan proposed by project organizers “did not address the key concerns identified by FTA in last year’s rating.”

The AAR last month petitioned the STB to incorporate cost-benefit analysis into rulemaking proceedings. AAR urged that, “in the spirit of good government, such analysis should include the most current and reliable data possible, and that the Board should consider the cumulative impact of regulations when proposing and adopting new rules.” AAR is requesting that the STB initiate a rulemaking proceeding and adopt three new procedural requirements for future rulemakings: that the Board “consider the economic costs and benefits of new rules when it proposes and adopts them; consider the cumulative impact of regulations; and base its decisions on up-to-date and reliable data.” “Meaningful cost-benefit analysis (sometimes called ‘economic analysis,’ ‘regulatory-impact analysis’ or ‘benefit-cost analysis’) facilitates sound agency decision-making through an evaluation of whether additional rules will achieve positive outcomes, and at what cost,” AAR said. “Cost-benefit analysis is a widely accepted feature of modern administrative law and is an indispensable part of reasoned policymaking. While these practices are required by law at executive agencies, current administrative law does not require independent agencies like the STB to do these basic analyses—a reality the AAR petition acknowledges. “However, the AAR argues that the STB—recently equipped with two new members, who, along with Chairman Begeman, seek agency reforms—would have access to better information and could have substantially greater confidence in critical rulemaking decisions if cost-benefit analyses were performed. This approach would help guarantee that rulemakings comply with the law and will withstand judicial scrutiny.” railwayage.com

Market Greenbrier Receives $450MM in Orders The Greenbrier Companies received orders for 3,800 new railcars with an aggregate value of nearly $450 million during its fiscal second quarter ended Feb. 28. The orders include tank cars, automobile-carrying railcars and covered hoppers, and are “consistent with Greenbrier’s expectations for the period,” the company said. “A new railcar backlog of 26,000 units valued at $2.7 billion continues to be diversified across railcar types.” Greenbrier also announced preliminary results for its fiscal second quarter. It expects revenue of approximately $650 million and unadjusted EPS of $.07 to $.09 per share.

WORLDWIDE Seoul Metro, operator of metro lines 1-8 in the Korean capital, signed a memorandum of understanding with the People’s Committee of Vietnam last month to build a metro network in Da Nang. The project would be financed through a public private partnership (PPP), with Korean construction firms Lotte Engineering & Construction and Saman forming part of the consortium. The agreement confirms an MoU signed between the two parties in January 2019, which envisaged a $3 billion streetcar and metro system. Seoul Metro and

railwayage.com

Da Nang City will conduct preliminary feasibility studies for the project and use the results to draw up specific network plans and public-private operation models.

within NS’s guidelines and timeframe. Included is installation supervision, operator and technical training, and field service and in-service support.

NORTH AMERICA

Metra last month issued a request for proposals (RFP) for up to 400 new locomotivehauled railcars, and the Chicago-area commuter railroad is allowing manufacturers to propose alternative designs that could reduce delays and suit Metra’s needs better than its bi-level gallery cars, some of which have been in service upwards of 70 years. Proposals will be due in August, and Metra aims to finalize a deal by the end of the year. The initial order will be for at least 200 cars. Whatever design is chosen must have increased seating capacity, and the interior design must allow for “the most efficient passenger flow possible.” As well, the seats must have armrests and cup holders, and manufacturers have the option of proposing features such as USB ports, foot rests and tray tables. Heated floors can also be offered as an option. The new cars must also include bike racks for two to five bikes, a camera/ DVR system for the passenger area and LED lighting. Onboard Wi-Fi may be proposed as an option.

Norfolk Southern has awarded Trainyard Tech, LLC a contract to update the existing CLASSMASTER™ hump yard process control system at the Lamberts Point Coal Dumping Facility in Norfolk, Va. The upgrade includes new computers and new process control system software for interfacing with the facility’s Empty Yard and Barney Yard. Trainyard Tech will be adding Automatic Equipment Identification (AEI) RF readers to the system, enabling cars to be monitored throughout the coal dumping process. Included is TyTReporter, which Trainyard Tech describes as “a sophisticated railyard reporting tool, customizable by all levels of NS Lamberts Point users to simplify troubleshooting, analyze yard trends and review up-to-the-minute historical performance. Drilling down to gather information about an individual railcar or yard device is quick and simple.” Trainyard Tech will assume the technical leadership role to work

April 2019 // Railway Age 7

Update

NS: 3-D Simulation for Brake Test Refresher Training

orfolk Southern has filed a petition with the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of federal railroad safety regulations regarding refresher training for mechanical inspectors, “FRA WAIVER PETITION DOCKET No. FRA-2018-0100, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-passenger Trains and Equipment, End-Of-Train Devices (49 C.F.R. Part 232).”

NS proposes to create a 3-D training simulator developed by Heartwood using web-based software to satisfy the hands-on portion of refresher training. NS seeks to modify current training requirements by changing Section Five: “Require all employees to individually demonstrate ‘hands-on’ capability by successfully applying the skills and knowledge the employee will need to possess to perform the tasks required.” “Inspecting and testing freight car air brakes, a common railroad task, is a fundamental part of a railroad’s initial training for conductors and freight car mechanics,” NS says. “This 8 Railway Age // April 2019

inspection and testing, known as CFR 232 Class I Brake Test – Initial Terminal Inspection (A-6), requires NS (and most railways) to have multiple freight cars on-site and allocate a significant amount of training time for demonstration, practices and evaluation.” NS says its simulation training is designed to “alleviate the physical space and time constraints [associated with] inspection. The simulation allows a student to visually inspect a variety of randomized freight cars ... while manipulating brake components to properly configure the brake system. The student determines correct brake pressure and inspects for brake application and release via an exam practice mode. This gives the student additional practice at their pace, from any device, with a record of their performance. The benefits are improved knowledge of air brake components and functions; increased efficiency when performing the A-6 Test; increased proficiency when determining air brake equipment condition; and a standardized training resource. The 3-D sim is also a formalized tool for refresher training

for a given individual and part of a wider initiative for meeting FRA Part 243 training requirements. Students loved it, they can do the task whenever they have time, as opposed to scheduled. An instructor observed conductors training with the 3-D sim before class even started asking to take it back with them.” NS expects to train 50-100 freight car repair personnel and 1,800 conductors using the simulation, “with the possibility of even broader use soon.”

3-d sim training alleviates physical space and time constraints .” railwayage.com

Update Matt Rose at REF 2019: It’s About Growth—Not Cutting BNSF Executive Chairman Matt Rose, nearing retirement, shared his views on the rail industry with Railway Age Editor-in-Chief William C. Vantuono and more than 400 attendees at Railroad Financial Corp.’s annual conference. Rose talked extensively about Precision Scheduled Railroading (PSR), business growth, advanced technology and other topics. “Trying to be more precise-like in scheduling isn’t something new at BNSF,” Rose said. “We have a history of trying to do just that. Growth in customer business is our focus. Cost cutting as a PSR theme only goes so far. Yes, ‘sweating out the assets’ has to be part of a balancing act, but BNSF balances its management of the railroad toward benefits shared by employees, customers, investors and the community at large.” “A PSR method that seeks about $125 million in cost savings from every thousand employees cut isn’t thinking long term, as it often ignores service disruptions to customers,” Rose noted. “Cutting capex to a lower percentage of revenues, for example, less than 15%, to achieve PSR goals isn’t the correct measurement.” It’s better to base capex based on GTMs (gross ton-miles), supporting the necessary required maintenance, or perhaps as a “traffic velocity congestion relief investment.” As a required corporate goal, BNSF seeks continued traffic growth in volume. “This is essential,” Rose said. “BNSF needs to grow units, not just revenue yield. Disengaging from our customers to change internal cost savings is not a good long-term business strategy. De-marketing tactics can result in

unanticipated but logical bad public policy outcomes. There’s nothing wrong with being a low-cost supplier, but ignoring your customers until you hit a wall on costs can have undesirable longer-term consequences.” BNSF prefers a “balanced approach” to operations, Rose stressed. Growing traffic units and operating income is a better way to increase revenues that figure into the OR (operating ratio). BNSF also focuses on improving its return on assets, “effectively using capital at today’s real cost of about 7%. There is a natural market demand imbalance to many rail freight commodities. Empty-car returns have to be expected. Excessive storing of locomotives has service reliability consequences—railroads need to have a balanced locomotive power reserve available. The PSR emphasis on reporting gross units stored has a dark side. All this makes PSR ‘balancing’ a very difficult task. Without balance, railroads run the risk of encouraging unintended political consequences and disruption of commerce.” “We hear significant discussion about shortand medium-length intermodal hauls as a growth opportunity for North American railroads,” Vantuono asked. “What are the hurdles for increasing market share in that business segment? Can it work in a PSR model?” “Volume growth will largely be intermodal-focused,” Rose said. “BNSF’s intermodal strategy is to extend single-line intermodal steel-wheel service eastward into Ohio and Georgia. We continue to rely upon our core customers as the critical first-mile and lastmile organizer of intermodal growth.” Rose was asked about what he calls “PTC

2.0,” that is, PTC with business benefits beyond safety improvements; autonomous or semiautonomous trains; remote onboard equipment health monitoring/tracking/tracing; and wayside fault detection and trending. “BNSF for the past seven years has been engaged with PTC suppliers like Wabtec on how we can effectively integrate PTC basics into better intelligence and service for our customers,” Rose said. “Fully automated trains are unlikely, given our approximately 36,000 grade crossings. We say ‘yes’ to attended automation of some train control functionality and train dispatching procedures for safety and better efficiency, as well as to using PTC 2.0 upgrades for better customer inventory and motion visibility. There are significant train capacity advantages as PTC installation problems are replaced by mining of GPS functionality.” PTC 2.0, through moving-block operations (rather than legacy fixed-block), improved crew calling and train ETA predictability, “has the potential to increase capacity without added expensive track capex,” Rose said. “Many other benefits from a constant two-way (train/wayside) communications system are possible.”

CONNECT Connecting you with your data. www.pandrol.com railwayage.com

Partners in excellence April 2019 // Railway Age 9

Watching Washington

Are STB’s Newbies Change Agents?

tanley found Livingstone faster than vacancies on the fivemember Surface Transportation Board (STB) have been filled, with two remaining more than three years after Congress increased from three the number of Senate-confirmed seats. While two new members were confirmed in January—one filling a vacancy created by former Chairman Dan Elliott’s 2017 resignation; another occupying one of the two new seats—White House and Senate constipation has mocked the 2015 Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act that created the new seats. Its intent was to boost STB productivity and efficiency, and establish momentum to decide its docket rather than act simply as a storage bin. The 2015 law enlarging the STB was shepherded by former Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S. Dak.), who shares some responsibility for the delay owing to his access to President Trump, who makes STB nominations; and Thune’s influence within the Senate. As Commerce Committee chairman, Thune held considerable sway over moving nominees to a Senate f loor confirmation vote; and now, as Senate majority whip, is that chamber’s thirdhighest ranking member, furthering his direct access to Trump. Meanwhile, STB Chairman Ann Begeman, a Republican, has delayed since her elevation in January 2017—and counter to legislative directives authored by Thune—meaningful action on rulemakings of urgency to the shippers, whose

TWO New Members were confirmed in January

10 Railway Age // April 2019

interests are at the core of the STB’s statutory purpose. Begeman, previously a Commerce Committee staffer, shares South Dakota roots with Thune. Begeman’s reason—as that of her predecessor and Democrat, Elliott—is that significant matters not carrying statutory deadlines should be delayed pending reinforcements. Before departing office, Elliott said, “We don’t want to do anything drastic.” Rulemakings—several in limbo for more than four years—involve revising how railroad revenue adequacy is determined; evaluating its impact on maximum freight rates; simplifying and making more efficient and less costly the review of maximum rate challenges; developing standards for imposing fuel surcharges; and establishing regulations allowing captive shippers access to a second railroad. Applying Newton’s first law of motion, politicians and regulators who are at rest will stay at rest unless a force moves them. Enter STB newbies Patrick J. Fuchs, a 30-year-old Republican, and Martin J. Oberman, a 73-year-old Democrat—one a youthquake, the other an accomplished public-sector doer of difficult tasks. Few railroad regulators took office with as much in-depth knowledge of the issues as Fuchs, who, while a senior legislative aide to the Senate Commerce Committee, reporting to Thune, participated in the drafting and passage of numerous bills directly affecting freight and passenger railroads, including the 2015 STB reauthorization. He has startled many with his ability to quickly summarize rail issues, link them to commerce law and regulation, and offer insight on their interaction with economics and public policy. Oberman, an attorney and perennial fixture in Chicago Democratic politics, earned a “progressive” label challenging the entrenched patronage system of Chicago’s Democratic machine politics. As chairman of Chicago Metra—named to the board by Mayor Rahm Emanuel in 2013—he is credited with tidying-up a patronage scandal. Awaiting Senate confirmation to the second unfilled new STB seat is Michelle

Politicians and regulators at rest will remain so unless forced.” A. Schultz, a Republican and attorney with the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. Former STB member Deb Miller, a Democrat, withdrew her name from consideration after President Trump failed to renominate her following expiration of her first term. That seat awaits a nominee. Shippers voice similar objectives for Oberman and Fuchs: Overcome the agency’s “biases” in favor of the status quo; decide policy-oriented rulemakings expeditiously; find ways to enhance competition without undermining rail revenue adequacy; and reconcile ever-increasing rail profitability, and service degradation traced to Precision Scheduled Railroading, with “meaningful protection” for captive shippers. Railroads, preferring the status quo, want the STB to require, in all rulemakings, cost/ benefit analyses—a subjective art promising years of further delay and litigation. Begeman—Trump’s designated chairman—alone controls the STB docket; tension with Miller over the agency’s snail’s pace contributed to her failed renomination. Whether Fuchs and Oberman emerge as change agents remains to be seen.

FRANK N. WILNER Contributing Editor railwayage.com

Financial Edge

Rail Equipment Finance 2019 Highlights

f you missed this year’s Rail Equipment Finance Conference held in La Quinta, Calif., you may have missed the best rail equipment and finance program ever assembled in one location. Never fear, here is the Financial Edge annual summary of key takeaways from the speakers gracing the podium at REF 2019. This is a summary of the full report on REF 2019. For the full report, go to https://www.railwayage.com/ financeleasing/ref-2019-roundup/. • Sergio Rebelo, Northwestern University Kellogg School of Management: Computerization and automation continue to move forward at an accelerated rate, depressing unskilled workers’ wages, increasing the income gap and decreasing the breadth of the middle class and the middle market for retail and service consumption. • David Humphrey, Railinc: See p. 30. • Robert Pickel, National Steel Car: Tank car demand highlights a projected 51,000unit build year for railcars. Steel prices are rising as a result of demand, tariffs and increasing raw materials. • Philip Baggaley and Betsy Snyder from S&P Global Ratings: S&P forecasting does not suggest a recession in the short term, but leading indicators may be softening in this consumer-spending-led period of expansion. • Mike O’Malley, RSI: 2018 was a big year for DOT 117R tank cars. • Dan Penovich, Mitsui Rail Capital: Years of energy-related volatility may give way to a more balanced 2019. • Nicole Leonard, S&P Global Platts: Crude prices will rise slightly in 2019 and production will continue to expand, especially in the Permian Basin. • Eric Starks, FTR Associates: NAFTArelated freight rail moves are not showing severe impact from NAFTA-related changes in trade policy. • Matt Elkott, Cowen & Company: Leasing railcars seems to provide a hedge against the volatility of railcar manufacturing, so expect continued interest and competition in the space. • Kristine Kubacki, Mizuho Securities USA: Rail is still looking for the next great business opportunity (post crude by rail). • Rod Case, Oliver Wyman: Rail must railwayage.com

embrace innovation within its existing vertically integrated network. • Ron Sucik, RSE Consulting: Rail was unable to capture intermodal market share from truck in 2018. • Ryan Eckert, The David J. Joseph Company: The U.S. mill run rate is above 80% (the original stated goal of the government tariff program) and additional mill capacity is being added in 2019. • Adam Simeon, Union Pacific: UP sees industrial production growth declining in 2019 and 2020. • Joe Devoe, DVB Bank SE: Lease rates on new cars continue to decrease putting stress on the amount of money that can be lent against assets. • Stefan Loeb, Watco: The national fleet of 50-foot boxcars continues to fall short in serving the needs of North American users. • Bruce Ridley, Packaging Corp. of America: A shrinking boxcar fleet causes modal shifts between truck and rail. • Paul Titterton, GATX: Boxcars need to adapt to the customer base rather than forcing the customer base to adapt to the kinds of boxcars offered for service. • Bill McNally, Oklahoma Gas and Electric: Lessors hoping to keep coal cars in service need to be flexible with customers. • Michael Weiss, Greenbriar Equity Group: In the PSR world, rail customers are looking for lower prices, better asset utilization and a better rail network. • Railcar Valuation Panel: Values on newer cars trading in the secondary market are being impacted by lower lease rates. • Tony Hatch, ABH Consulting: Class I’s continue to spend on capex at a massive rate, ahead of most peer industries on a percentage basis. • Matthew Rose, BNSF: See p. 9. • Health and Future of the Leasing Market: Service in the leasing market is a place where lessors need to focus attention to show customers that there is more than price in the equation. • Graham Brisben, PLG Consulting: Plastics expansion will create the need for an additional 9,000 hoppers and 6,500 tank railcars in 2019 and 2020. • Todd Kahn, Chicago Freight Car Leasing: Though grain shipments have increased,

Locomotive rebuilding continues to take center stage.” car supply has outpaced demand. • Don Graab, Triangle Brothers: Locomotive rebuilding continues to take center stage for railroads. • Tom Chenoweth, NRE: Class I’s prefer to rebuild locomotives without aftertreatment while maintaining fuel economy. • Biggs Appraisal Service: The locomotive rebuilding trend is expected to continue long-term. • David Scott, CNGmotive: The company’s crashworthiness-approved tender is expected to begin testing in the third quarter. • Jason Kuehn, Oliver Wyman: PSR might mean the death of the DC-powered locomotive. BNSF and GE are pursing batterypowered locomotives. • Locomotive Valuation Panel: Used locomotives have retained their value, with modest declines in price increases across all models. The rental market continues to be under stress as PSR creates excess capacity in the six-axle fleet and as the industrial market does not have the volume needs to stress capacity in lower-horsepower, fouraxle units. REF 2019 was an awesome event with excellent speakers and content. Plan to attend REF 2020, March 2-4.

DAVID NAHASS President Railroad Financial Corp. April 2019 // Railway Age 11

Legislative Report

N e w Co n g r e s s , N e w Fa c e s ,

nock, knock. Who’s there? If at the door are those laboring in official Washington, the answer is, “many new faces”—new congressional committee chairs, regulators, association chiefs, lobbyists and labor negotiators. Does not danger dwell where unfamiliarity and uncertainty lurk?

12 Railway Age // April 2019

History may provide solace. “When you’re fighting the railroads, they’re very strong and they seldom lose,” says one of the railroads’ most resolute adversaries, attorney Robert G. Szabo, whose Consumers United for Rail Equity coalition once came within a single Commerce Committee vote of sending to the Senate floor a referendum on whether to retain for railroads partial

economic deregulation. Indeed, it is difficult finding evidence of railroads making a hash of things in the legislative or regulatory arenas. Enter now an assemblage of new advocates and decision-makers as railroads again sally forth to defend against those urging a tilt in their direction of the competitive playing field. Railroads also must avoid stumbling railwayage.com

Norfolk Southern

New Challenges

Legislative Report policies and programs assuring continued viability of smaller freight and all manner of passenger railroads.

Does danger dwell where unfamiliarity and uncertainty lurk? BY FRANK N. WILNER, CAPITOL HILL CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

service-wise in implementing Precision Scheduled Railroading that is pounding operating ratio down to unmapped depths, and in finalizing installation of Positive Train Control (PTC). Also fraught with risk of unwanted new regulation and legislation is rail transport of crude oil, which has bounded from 55 million barrels in 2012 to more than 130 railwayage.com

million barrels, and now represents some 40% of domestic crude oil moving to refineries. A misstep could chill efforts to replace prescriptive safety regulation with more efficient performance-based safety standards, where the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) establishes a desired safety outcome and carriers innovate to reach the goal. To be preserved and advanced are

The New Faces As for the new arrivals, there are Association of American Railroads (AAR) President Ian Jefferies, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) President Chuck Baker and American Public Transportation Association (APTA) President Paul Skoutelas. On the lobbying front, new AAR arrival Adrian Arnakis is collaborating with newbie Jefferies in pursing the industry’s lobbying agenda. Arnakis arrived from the Republican side of the Senate Commerce Committee; Jefferies from the Democratic side—both having been senior advisors to senators on transportation, economic and safety issues. Other new lobbyists are CSX’s John Patelli, Norfolk Southern’s Marque Ledoux and Union Pacific’s Printz Bolin. Among challenges is that of 535 lawmakers, only six remain who were present in 1980 when Congress concluded the necessity of rolling back stultifying economic regulation (the Staggers Rail Act, largely now unknown in name on Capitol Hill)— provisions of which many rail shippers are aggressively seeking to dilute through regulatory fiat or new legislation. Those remaining—some since moved from the House to Senate—are Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska). As for the new 116th Congress, the most railroad-important committees have leadership changes. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.)—robust in his support of short lines, but thought “swayable” by captive shippers—chairs the House T&I Committee; while Sam Graves (R-Mo.), previously a “no” vote on liberalizing truck size and weight, and said to be “no fan of economic regulation,” is ranking (senior minority party) member. DeFazio succeeds now-retired Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), who, with his father, Bud—a previous T&I Committee chairman—were among the freight railroads’ best congressional friends. T&I’s Railroad Subcommittee is chaired by Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.), said “not a plus” for passenger rail, but a proponent of April 2019 // Railway Age 13

Legislative Report funding the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) Program, a public-private partnership to reduce train and truck congestion. Lipinski’s father, Bill, a former T&I Committee member, now lobbies for BNSF. The Railroad Subcommittee’s ranking member is Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), a perennial supporter of the short line and regional railroad investment tax credit, but otherwise a back-bencher on rail issues. On the Senate Commerce Committee, Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), who voted to open Amtrak long-distance routes to competitive bidding, favors economic deregulation and opposes longer-combination trucks, is chairman, succeeding John R. Thune (R-S.Dak.), now Senate Majority Whip. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) succeeds election-defeated Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) as ranking member. While said “not very friendly” toward Class I’s, she is a proponent of passenger rail. On the Senate Surface Transportation Subcommittee, Deb Fisher (R-Neb.) remains chairman. She advocates safety regulators be bound by “sound science, relevant data and data modeling” in decision-making, and supports giving railroads greater flexibility to apply innovation in meeting safety goals (performance-based safety standards). The subcommittee’s ranking member is Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), with minor past involvement in rail issues. At the Surface Transportation Board (STB), former Senate Commerce Committee

senior legislative aide Patrick J. Fuchs, a Republican, joins attorney, former Chicago alderman and Chicago Metra Chairman Martin J. Oberman, a Democrat, as new members. Republican Ann D. Begeman remains chairman, with two STB seats vacant. (See Watching Washington, p. 10, for more on these members and STB issues.) For the first time since 2009, the three-

Don’t call the congressional and regulatory newbies rookies, as each has MVP credentials. member National Mediation Board (NMB) is under Republican control, with new GOP arrivals Gerald W. (Trey) Fauth III and Kyle Fortson. Should productive rail collective bargaining stall, the NMB determines if and when to declare an impasse, leading to appointment of a fact-finding Presidential Emergency Board that recommends a nonbinding settlement. The NMB’s new tilt was seen in the first significant action of Fauth and Fortson—a rulemaking to weaken

impediments for workers seeking to decertify their union. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have relatively new leaders—Ronald L. Batory at FRA; and Acting Administrator K. Jane Williams at FTA, pending Senate confirmation of Thelma Drake. Don’t call the newbies rookies, however, as each has MVP credentials. The crucial unknown, of course, is a difficult-to-quantify human chemistry—the principal determinant of effective engagement. It was no coincidence that in 1998, when Bud Shuster chaired the T&I Committee, and STB reauthorization, hard-coupled to a shipper reregulation agenda, was before Congress, the AAR hired Ed Hamberger as its president. Early in his career, Hamberger was employed by the elder Shuster, with whom he built a lasting bond, which served railroads demonstrably well. A New Era Now Begins Although railroads are targeting lawmakers and regulators with advertising, advertorials and third-party-induced commentary defending partial economic deregulation, the more immediate challenge is competitive equity—assuring that heavy trucks pay user charges commensurate with the pavement and highway-bridge damage they cause. Railroads also oppose congressional loosening of maximum truck length and weight limits, which would accelerate user-charge under-payments, as weight is a primary

LTK is the right choice for your light rail needs: we’ve helped clients procure more than 2,300 LRVS and have worked on nearly every LRT system in the country. No one does it better.

www.ltk.com 14 Railway Age // April 2019

railwayage.com

Legislative Report cause of pavement and bridge deterioration. The HTF remains underfunded, meaning A coalition, including the National rail-competitive heavy trucks enjoy an Industrial Transportation League (NITL), unjust competitive advantage over railroads Amazon, FedEx and UPS, is asking Congress that own, operate, maintain and even police to allow double 33-foot trailers nationwide— their track network. To restore HTF solvency, lawmakers are up from twin-28-foot trailers; and even to allow maximum truck weight to increase considering either an increase in the perfrom 80,000 pounds to 91,000. While rail- gallon motor fuels tax; a vehicle-miles travroads grasp it’s a sticky wicket fighting their eled (VMT) fee; a weight-distance charge; or customers, “it doesn’t preclude us from removal of a legislative prohibition on tolling remaining firm on the need for truckers to Interstate Highways constructed since 1956—supported by President Trump. The fully cover their costs,” says the AAR. Although heavy trucks pay a per-gallon 2015 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st motor fuels tax directed to the Highway Century (TEA-21) authorized a pilot project Trust Fund (HTF), the tax hasn’t increased allowing 18 states to toll Interstate Highways, since 1993, while purchasing power has with some 3,000 miles of the 46,000-mile decreased by almost 65%, and nominal Interstate Highway System now tolled. While the House T&I Committee has costs of highway and bridge construction jurisdiction over truck size and weight, the and repair has risen substantially. The HTF, created in 1956 to finance Senate gives jurisdiction over truck length the Interstate Highway System and other to its Commerce Committee, and truck federal-aid highways—and now with a weight to the Environment and Public AnacostiaAd-HalfPageApril2019.pdf 3/26/19 Works Committee. Whether user charges separate account for mass transit—has Production questions: Martha Anderson 708-528-0682 required bailouts from the General Trea- are called a tax or fee, the congressional taxsury of more than $143 billion since 2008. writing committees (House Ways & Means

and Senate Finance) may seek jurisdiction. Semantics is at play here, as Republicans en masse have signed a “no new taxes” pledge. Notable is that the Senate Finance Committee’s ranking Democrat Ron Wyden; the Ways & Means Committee’s Democratic Chairman Earl Blumenauer and the T&I Committee’s Democratic Chairman DeFazio all are from Oregon, where a state “weightmile tax” has been in effect for decades. Although the AAR told Congress in February it supports a 20-cents-per-gallon increase in the fuels tax, Arnakis says “railroads are largely agnostic as to the means for keeping the Highway Trust Fund solvent,” as long as it is paid for by users. APTA, meanwhile, is seeking creation of a Passenger Rail Trust Fund—separate from the HTF—to increase existing investment in intercity rail. It would have a yet-tobe-determined dedicated revenue source, with grants directed by regional and state transportation authorities. Aside from the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which expires

louisville &indiana railroad 2019 short line railroad of the year On behalf of the Anacostia family of railroads, we salute the LIRC team on their success and this impressive honor. railwayage.com

April 2019 // Railway Age 15

Legislative Report in 2020 and already serves to authorize highway, mass transit and highway-rail grade crossing projects, Congress is crafting a more comprehensive 10-year infrastructure bill to include telecommunications, the electrical grid, and water and waste water systems, with a price tag exceeding $1 trillion and no identifiable revenue source. Strong political divisions already are evident. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) says such an infrastructure bill must transition America to a “clean energy economy,” with DeFazio calling for a “less fossil [fuel] dependent” nation; but the Trump Administration [and, by extension, most congressional Republicans] rejects the Democrats’ New Green Deal. The Administration advocates greater use of coal, and has relaxed emissions caps for coal-fired generating plants. Equally problematic is that while projects and spending are being identified for a bold infrastructure bill, there has been little discussion as to who will pay, and how. The nation’s debt has increased by more than

16 Railway Age // April 2019

$2 trillion since 2017, standing now at $22 trillion, and on track to reach $33 trillion by 2029. Even absent new spending legislation, Congress faces having to increase the national debt ceiling before Oct. 1. In 2015, Presidential candidate Donald Trump said that if the debt topped the then-$21 trillion mark, “Obama will have effectively bankrupted our country.” Perhaps no greater truth has been spoken than by T&I Committee ranking member Graves: “We’re going to have to spend a lot of political capital to do whatever it is we’re going to do.” Short Lines and Regionals For short line and regional railroads, no issue is of greater importance than restoration of a 50% investment tax credit (45-G, for its designated section in the Internal Revenue Code)—and making it permanent, as opposed to the six renewals it has received since being created in 2005. That tax credit has encouraged capital investment of more than $4 billion by regional

and short line railroads, benefitting some 10,000 shippers in mostly rural areas. Bills to extend 45-G are moving in Congress. Among sponsors of the Houseintroduced Building Rail Access for Customers and the Economy (BRACE) Act (H.R. 510) are Blumenauer, DeFazio and Graves; while a similarly named and written S. 203 has support from Schumer, Thune and Wicker. Both include provisions making the 45-G tax credit permanent, and retroactive to Jan. 1, 2018, as the previous 45-G provision expired in 2017. Expected is that these bills will be incorporated with tax credit bills benefitting other industries—collectively moving in a single omnibus bill. For example, the Tax Extender and Disaster Relief Act (S. 610) incorporates the small-railroad 45-G tax credit with those of other industries, the rub being that S. 610 has no provision for permanence. Amtrak and Transit The immediate challenge for Amtrak and

railwayage.com

Legislative Report public transit is avoiding President Trump’s heavy-on-the-skinny fiscal year 2020 budget request that seeks to slash Amtrak funding by 23% and transit by 31%. There already is a $90 billion backlog in project funding to bring transit systems to a state of good repair, says APTA. Millennials increasingly are looking to substitute public transportation for the automobile, and transit is a lifeline for many, especially in rural areas. As for Amtrak, the Trump budget proposal cuts in half funding for the Northeast Corridor (NEC), and zeroes out Amtrak’s NEC Gateway project, which includes a new cross-Hudson River tunnel linking New Jersey with New York City. It is suspected that the Federal Transit Administration’s “medium-low rating” of the tunnel project, which disqualifies it for federal funding, is in furtherance of the President’s intention to shift more cost responsibility for Amtrak to the states and localities. The Trump budget request also would cut funding for long-distance trains, break many into shorter routes and, in many

places, substitute connecting buses for rail. Where the President’s budget proposal provides for capital improvement grants for new transit projects, they are intended as incentives for regions, states and localities to provide most of the financing. The Trump Administration says that while highways are of national concern, transit and intercity corridor trains are of local concern. Amtrak’s dismal on-time performance (OTP), where its trains are hosted on freight railroad tracks, could be ripe for new legislative attention. This could occur if the Supreme Court agrees with an AAR petition to scrap a requirement in the 2008 Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act (PRIIA) allowing Amtrak to collaborate with the FRA in establishing metrics and standards for OTP. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Wicker takes special interest in freight railroad dispatching of Amtrak trains. In 2018, only one of Amtrak’s long-distance routes had an OTP of more than 70%. Ten of

those routes had OTP of less than 50%, with Norfolk Southern the caboose, delivering on time only 24% of Amtrak trains it dispatched. Additionally, the Association for Independent Rail Passenger Operators (AIPRO) seeks a new “rail title” in the FAST Act, to include creation of an Office of Rail Expansion within the FRA and FTA to encourage additional intercity rail passenger corridors, with pilot projects allowing competitive bidding by private-sector operators on Amtrak routes. Where private-sector competitors were allowed to bid on commuter routes, Amtrak often lost the contracts. Rail Suppliers Topping the congressional wants of rail suppliers is a “Buy America” provision, where federal dollars fund capital investment. This request is taking on a national security aspect as PTC and other advanced electronics, with billions of lines of computer code, are becoming fused into all aspects of railroading, making them targets for foreign-government cyber espionage and cyberwarfare.

QUALITY TANK CAR SERVICE TO GET YOUR CARS IN-AND-OUT FAST!

Central Maine & Quebec Railway’s 110-acre facility at Derby has 80,000 sq. ft. of repair space, 24,000 of which is the newly renovated cleaning facility featuring state-of-the-art equipment.

Full Tank-Car

CLEANING

KRS has installed an automatic, internal cleaning system that uses a high-pressure water jet

Locomotive & Freight Car

REPAIR

Our fully trained and certified staff has the ability to repair, replace, and qualify all tank-car valves

STORAGE

Complete tank-car fleet management with storage space for as many as 1,400 railcars

Contact railwayage.com

Chad Mowery: 207-631-4348 • chad.mowery@cmqrailway.com Customer Service: 207-848-4287 • customerservice@krs-cleaning.com April 2019 // Railway Age 17

LRT Market

Big Year For LRT LRT, a relatively affordable way to bring rail transit to many cities, is filling the niche between buses and rapid transit in North America.

BY OSCAR SINCLAIR, IRJ PRO MARKET ANALYST

he North American light rail transit (LRT) renaissance began in the late 1970s and early 1980s, starting with Edmonton in 1978 and followed by Calgary and San Diego. More than 40 years later, LRT remains the most appealing mode of new public transportation for many North American cities. Billions of dollars of local, state and federal funding have been spent, and development continues today with 129 miles of lines under construction in cities across North America representing an investment of more than $28 billion. A further 126.5 route-miles are anticipated to enter construction over the next year at a cost of more than $15 billion, according to data from IRJ PRO. Growth has partly been driven by a desire to revive streetcars, which largely disappeared by the 1950s, having been replaced

18 Railway Age // April 2019

by diesel buses. LRT, a relatively affordable way to bring rail transit to many cities, can fill the niche between buses and rapid transit (subway) systems, which are highly expensive and complex to implement. LRT has received significant federal funding and has successfully driven investment in transit-oriented development in many cities. Many projects in Canada have struggled to attract federal funding, meaning cities have been forced to recover a much higher share of their capital costs through revenue. The capital-intensive nature of LRT in Canada may go some way in explaining why there aren’t that many systems currently in operation, while in the U.S. there are currently 51 operational LRTs as of November 2018, with a much broader spectrum of systems across mid- to large-sized cities. The North American LRT market is expanding (opposite). While other markets

such as Europe have seen a contraction in projects planned for 2019, the number in North America has more than doubled. The past year has seen the completion of four projects in the U.S. The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS, North Carolina) LYNX Blue Line Northeast Corridor, a 9.3-mile, 11-station extension that cost $1.16 billion to implement, opened in March 2018, and is expected to double ridership. In May 2018, Northern California’s East Contra Costa BART Extension Project (eBART), a 10-mile line between Pittsburg and Antioch, was commissioned. In Texas, El Paso’s 27-stop, 5-mile heritage streetcar, serving the city center, opened, with services operated by six vintage PCC cars restored and modernized by Brookville Equipment. Milwaukee Streetcar, also known as “The Hop,” opened to passengers in November. railwayage.com

LRT Market Currently, 18 projects are under construction across the U.S. and Canada. Toronto’s 11.8-mile. C$5.3 billion Eglinton Crosstown LRT will run east-west along Eglinton Avenue, with a 6.2-mile underground section serving 25 stations. GTHA (Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area) public transport authority Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario have signed a C$9.1 billion, 30-year alternative financing and procurement (AFP) contract with Crosslinx Transit Solutions, a consortium of ACS Dragados, AECON, EllisDon and SNCLavalin, to finance, build and maintain the line. Financing is provided by National Bank Financial and Scotia Capital as underwriters, with Alberta Treasury Branches. Seattle’s Eastlink LRT is due for completion within the next four years. The 14.5mile, 10-station line will branch off the existing north-south line. The $3.68 billion project has been granted a $1.3 billion FTA loan. Once completed in 2023, it is forecast to carry up to 50,000 passengers per day. Washington, D.C.’s Silver Line Stage 2 is due for completion in 2020. The 11.4mile, six-station extension is due to cost $2.7 billion. The 16-mile Maryland Purple Line is expected to be operational by 2022, serving 21 stations. Meridiam is a 70% equity partner in the project; CAF will be supplying rolling stock. 2019 looks to be a big year for light rail construction in the U.S. and Canada, with projects scheduled to begin work across nine cities (p 22). The C$3 billion second phase of Ottawa’s LRT expansion program will add 22.4 miles of new lines and 22 stations to the capital’s urban rail network by 2023. Stage 2 includes an 8-mile western extension of the Confederation Line with 10 new stations, while also extending eastward 6.2 miles, adding four stations. The third project included in Ottawa LRT Stage 2 is a 5-mile southern extension of the diesel-operated Trillium Line, which includes a 2-mile branch to MacdonaldCartier International Airport. The extension will include seven new stations, as well as 3,500 park-and-ride spots. The government of Ontario has devoted C$1 billion toward the second stage, which will more than double the length of Stage 1, the 7.8-mile east-west Confederation Line. Stage 1 of the Ottawa LRT was due to open in 4Q 2018, but due to a six-month railwayage.com

contract extension has been pushed back to mid-2019. The extension was due to the construction consortium Rideau Transit Group (ACS Infrastructure, SNC-Lavalin and EllisDon) missing two handover deadlines. Stage 1 will serve 13 stations and involves the excavation of a 1.6-mile tunnel that will run underneath Queen Street in the downtown area. Construction began in 2013 and is expected to cost C$2.1 billion. Alstom was awarded a $1.5 billion contract to supply 34 Citadis Spirit LRVs for the line in early 2015. Sound Transit’s (Seattle) 8.5-mile Lynnwood Link Extension is expected to enter construction this year. The project is intended to alleviate congestion in some of the most heavily used highway corridors in Washington State. The line will serve four stations and provide 2,650 parking spaces. The project is estimated to cost $2.9 billion, including rolling stock. The project secured local funding through the voter-approved Sound Transit 2 Plan, and the FTA is expected to contribute $1.2 billion in funding through its New Starts program. The line is forecast to carry up to 74,000 passengers per day by 2035 and offer a 28-minute ride from Lynnwood to Downtown Seattle. Sound Transit has a $650 million low-interest federal loan, in addition to the FTA New Starts grant. The line is scheduled to open in 2024. In Ontario, Hamilton Street Railway’s B Line is expected to enter construction this year. The 8.7-mile LRT will serve 17 stations, including interchanges with the city’s bus network. Stations have been designed to accommodate two-car trains as ridership grows. The project is expected to be completed by 2024. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan

Transportation Authority (LACMTA) Crenshaw/LAX Line is nearing completion and due for commissioning later this year. The 8.5-mile line from LAX to Crenshaw will serve the districts of Leimert, Hyde Park and Inglewood. The eight-station line was granted FTA approval in early 2012, and construction began on the $1.7 billion project in 2014. The line has come under scrutiny for not directly serving LAX, with the two closest stations around two miles from the airport. However, LACMTA last year began construction of a 2.2-mile people-mover to link the airport with the light rail line. It will be completed by 2023. Stage 1 of the 11.8-mile Kitchener-Waterloo ION LRT in Ontario is expected to open in the spring, following delays of Bombardier Flexity light rail vehicles. The line will run from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park Mall. It will have 16 stations, with parkand-ride facilities at two of them. The first stage also includes a 10.6-mile BRT system, which will later be replaced by LRT. Denver RTD is to complete its southeastern extension this year. The project, which will extend lines E and F by 2.3 miles, is estimated to cost $233 million. The $1 trillion federal infrastructure bill hyped by Donald Trump on his Presidential campaign trail two years ago appears to have faded into the background. The FTA has been sitting on $1.4 billion in funds earmarked for new projects; the agency has been reluctant to distribute funding, with only a fraction being allocated for transit projects in 2018. However, in November, the FTA announced it allocated $281 million in Capital Investment Grants to five projects in Arizona, California, Minnesota and Texas. At present, six LRT projects are awaiting grants promised in the federal appropriations

April 2019 // Railway Age 19

5th Annual

RAILWAY AGE CONFERENCE & EXPO

JUNE 5-6 Union League Club of Chicago Chicago, IL

EXPLORE THE CHALLENGES, ISSUES, AND TRENDS AFFECTING THE NORTH AMERICAN RAIL MARKET

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS

Patrick Ottensmeyer

Ian Jefferies

President & CEO Kansas City Southern

President & CEO Association of American Railroads

Peter Gilbertson

Rod Case

Michael Sussman

Andrew Fox

President & CEO Anacostia & Pacific Company

President Strategic Rail Finance

Kevin Sheys Partner Hogan Lovells

#RAILINSIGHTS

Partner Oliver Wyman

Principal Overland Limited Associates

SPONSORSHIPS & EXHIBITS AVAILABLE Contact Jonathan Chalon at 212.620.7224 | jchalon@sbpub.com

LRT Market

bill signed in March 2018. Among them is Seattle’s Lynnwood Link Extension, which last year was scaled back due to rising construction costs. The FTA may be entering legally shady territory if the funds are not distributed by the end of this fiscal year. Under congressional mandate, 85% of the transit capital grant budget ($2.25 billion) must be allocated

22 Railway Age // April 2019

by the end of 2019. The remaining funds ($350 million) will go back to the U.S. Treasury if unspent after four years. If the transit grants are uncommitted by the end of 2019, it is possible that local transit agencies go as far as filing a lawsuit under the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. The slowdown in FTA

spending can be seen as a symptom of the Trump Administration’s enmity toward urban centers and mass transit. However, the Administration’s anti-transit stance may be softened somewhat, now that Democrats control the U.S. House of Representatives. All data cited is available on subscriptionbased IRJ Pro, www.IRJpro.com.

railwayage.com

light rail vehicles

Modified LRVs For Legacy LRTs Retrofitting can be a viable alternative to purchasing new, but it’s more complex than it looks.

By Alfred E. Fazio, P.E., Contributing Editor, with Bridget Hodgson

n light rail vehicles, advancements have occurred in articulation, low-f loor design and use of alternative vehicle technology. The latter is advocated as one means of achieving shared use of light-density railroad trackage. In a design practice that harkens back to the glory days of private transit operation, many of these improvements have been accomplished through reconfiguration/reconstruction of existing fleets. The rebuild of the original single-articulated Dallas LRV into a double-articulated car with a low-floor center section is just one example. Likewise, the morphing of the NJ Transit Kinkisharyo car from the original-build triplex (double-articulated, 70% low-floor) into a five-section-articulated multi-unit (above) is another example. Such re-creation is likely to become more common given the scarcity of federal capital

railwayage.com

dollars to be distributed over an everincreasing number of light rail systems. The FTA’s current emphasis on state of good repair, rather than discard and pay for new, and the Trump Administration’s desire to infuse private financing into the transit industry also encourage re-creation. The LRV, however, constitutes only one system within an integrated complex of several other engineered systems. Track, train control, station and traction power subsystems require consideration when a vehicle of different configuration, or a re-created LRV, is introduced into a railway that was designed and built for a previous generation of vehicles. These considerations extend beyond reliability of operations, as the FTA requires a formal configuration management process and, ultimately, a new safety certification for such a change. Several integration problems surface immediately with the introduction of any

new railcar. These include such items as length of station platforms, door locations and designated stopping points. The acceleration and maximum speed of a new car and the ability to maintain schedule are important, as is location of such items as train-to-wayside transducers. Other integration issues are more subtle, particularly those that relate to the change in carbody style. Railcar articulation is not a new concept; main line railroads, streetcar systems, interurbans and rapid transit utilized such concepts as far back as the 1920s. The earlier articulations, however, mounted two carbodies on a single bogie. While this caused an imbalance in wheel loadings between articulated and non-articulated bogies, and careful analysis was made of the ability of the articulated joint to accommodate vertical curves, it did not dramatically alter carbody dynamics. This type of April 2019 // Railway Age 23

light rail vehicles articulation had been utilized in earlier North American LRVs (San Diego, Dallas). The incorporation of low-floor design has changed the architecture of the articulation to one consisting of a short body section rigidly mounted on a specialized bogie. This presents problems in vehicle dynamics, wherein the short, light section of the car has varying dynamic characteristics. To improve stability, it is connected to the section on either side by roofmounted dampers, with a structural Z bar added to govern vertical movement of the short section. To configure the car’s center area as a continuous low-floor interior, the center section(s) utilize small wheels. As an example, the nominal wheel diameter for the NJT Hudson-Bergen car low-floor section is 26 inches, with a wear limit as low as 24 inches. The axle is eliminated, thereby allowing the wheels to rotate independently. By way of comparison, typical wheel diameters for conventional rapid transit (highfloor) cars are on the order of 36 inches. Axle-less wheels are referred to as IRWs (independently rotating wheels). A recent trend in the evolution of North American LRVs is the reconstruction of existing equipment into longer units. Examples include expansion of the original Dallas single-articulated, high-floor LRV into a double-articulated that includes a low-floor section, and expansion of the NJT Hudson-Bergen/Newark Light Rail 70% low-floor triplex into a multi-unit (fivesection, 85% low-floor) LRV. The modernization of North American LRT systems to use multi-section, low-floor cars is a clear trend. While such evolution is generally beneficial, this process also requires consideration of the impacts on adjoining engineering systems—that is, those that integrate with the LRV. The reconstruction of older LRVs into low-floor multi-section-articulated units and/or the introduction of low-floor LRVs into railways originally configured for high-floor cars requires consideration of System Integration/System Safety impacts on interfacing engineered systems (as well as on operating practices and emergency response protocols). The engineering interfaces must consider the impact of three aspects of the LRV: multiple articulations using short 24 Railway Age // April 2019

carbody sections, small wheels and IRWs. The effects of these are felt independently and in combination. For signalization, the obvious factors include clear and fouling distances within interlockings or pocket tracks that could require adjustments due to change in LRV lengths. Another consideration in cases of conversion to low-floor is maintaining adequate shunt sensitivity. Less obvious in extending car length, as in the case of the NJT conversion to multi-units, is maintaining the brake rate that served as the basis for the block layout. Since modern LRVs rely heavily on dynamic braking at speeds above 5 to 10 mph, adding weight to the LRV (i.e., extending the car utilizing non-powered bogies) will alter the car weight/dynamic brake effort ratio. This can be compensated for by adjusting the friction brake effort in the blended brake equation.

Considerations for low-floor LRVs must extend to maintenance practice tolerances. The low-floor car may require consideration of ground clearances. In one case, a self-guarded frog on a crossing diamond required grinding to provide adequate clearance to the LRV. Some systems have experienced hits in street track with such streetscape treatments as Belgian blocks or brick pavers. Consideration must extend to maintenance practice tolerances. Consider that a typical wear limit on a 26-inch-diameter wheel is 2 inches, or 1 inch in radius. Likewise, a wear limit for railhead wear may be set as high as 0.5 inch. Combined, if other compensations are not made, the extremes in wear can reduce clearance by 1.5 inches. These wear factors also apply to managing station platform step-height tolerance. Clearances and shop track length require evaluation. Because nearly all equipment

for low-floor cars (air conditioners, invertors) are roof-mounted, work platforms are required at service locations. Vehicle/track interactions require evaluation of several integration issues when converting to multi-section low-floor LRVs. Conventional tapered wheels mounted on a solid axle have an inherent ability to self-steer. IRWs, however, do not self-steer. Nadal’s Limit for wheel/flange contact is often used as an indicator of the potential for a wheel climb derailment. Simple application of Nadal’s Limit assumes a wheel rolling parallel to the gauge line of rail. However, research has shown the wheel climb potential of a given L/V force ratio to be highly sensitive to the wheel angle of attack. A self-centering wheel/axle combination will exercise favorable angle of attack control: As the wheel begins to ride up the gauge face of the rail, the rolling radius will increase, and that of the opposite wheel decreases. This causes the axle to steer away from the attack. Unfortunately no such self-restoring mechanism exists with IRW. In such a case, wheel condition, rail wear on the gauge face (gauge face angle), track alignment and short warp anomalies require careful scrutiny. In addition to the loss of the self-steering mechanism of an axle-mounted wheel on curves, working guard rails (check rails) are not effective in pulling the high-side wheels away from frog or switch points. This is a factor that requires consideration in establishing inspection standards and wear limits for frog and switch points. On the NJT LRV, the powered-truck wheels are of a nominal 26-inch diameter. The wear tolerance limit may reduce the actual diameter of the smaller wheel to as low as 24 inches while in service. Consideration must be given to theoretical areas (i.e., gaps) in special trackwork, particularly since guard rails do not effectively pull an IRW away from actual frog point. AREMA, for example, allows use of rigid frogs on tangent track crossings (diamonds) for No. 6 or smaller frogs, and requires movable-point frogs for crossings greater than No. 6. Such criteria (including raised guarding) apply for main line railroad wheels and require consideration where small IDWs are in use. While such a design criterion is suitable for a large railroad axle-mounted wheel, it may be inadequate for a 24-inch IRW. railwayage.com

Transit-Oriented Development Class 1 Focus: CN The LA Metro El Monte Station, a catalyst for TOD, encompasses 350,000 square feet with bike, hub, retail and ticketing offices, and is LEED NC Gold-certified.

Innovation By Arturo Vasquez and Patrick M. McKelvey, AIA, Stantec

From a ‘p2’ system

On the West Coast, California is doing something different in TOD.

n the first installment of Railway Age’s Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) series, Stantec Executive Vice President of Infrastructure Stu Lerner explained how TOD is on the rise across North America. He described how New York got TOD right very early, and how that success has continued right up to the new skyscraper and transit development at One Vanderbilt Avenue. The farther you get from old American urban centers like New York City or Boston, the larger the legacy of our Interstate freeway system looms. Great distances and open spaces inevitably led to urban and suburban sprawl, with many people living on outer fringes of cities with less dense, automobile-oriented development. These communities are playing catch-up in the 21st century, as the idea of the multimodal transit hub has gained prominence out of necessity, giving rise to denser communities with more amenities, more transportation options and more walkable neighborhoods. That is certainly the case on the West Coast, railwayage.com

where California is doing something different in TOD. Incentivizing Developers Before we look at TOD in California, let’s take a look at what TOD is not. It is not just any development near a bus, train or light rail station. It is not a building within a quarter-mile of some form of transit, as some have tried to define it. As TOD has become increasingly desirable, it’s become fashionable to slap that sticker on a residential development whenever remotely possible, just to improve its financial performance. True TOD, and the broader concept of TOC (Transit-Oriented Communities) is an approach that incentivizes both transit and real estate development by taking a wider view of creating a community. It takes a progressive approach to development that incentivizes transit improvement and ridership, as well as denser developments that integrate office, retail and housing. Some progressive zoning approaches to TOD/TOC allow for more density, while

others will reduce parking requirements from 1.5 spaces per residential unit to 0.75, or even 0.5 space per unit. Not only does this encourage transit ridership by reinforcing the dependency on transit, but it also makes the project more feasible for the developer, who doesn’t have to invest in hundreds of $30,000 parking spaces before seeing any kind of return on investment. The development does not necessarily have to be a high-rise tower or be built directly on top of a brand-new transit station. Some models put the sweet spot for feasibility at around 200 units with an upgrade to existing transit. This has the added benefit of tempering the NIMBY element to a new development that inevitably accompanies resistance to high-rise towers in lower-scale neighborhoods. A low-rise Type 3 or Type 5 construction over a concrete podium building, for example, can be permitted at a different level of construction that doesn’t require more expensive material costs, high-rise code requirements or more stringent April 2019 // Railway Age 25

Transit-Oriented Development

The 18-story, 329-unit Radiant is a mixed-use, multi-family, residential, mid-rise development in downtown Denver adjacent to the RTD light rail line that runs on Welton Street.

elevator requirements. In the end, it’s about getting the financial numbers to work. Making a case for changes that allow for true TOD is desirable for developers. As we assemble evidence of more successful methods, the case becomes easier for transit and municipal authorities. The P2 model One very important difference between the Californian experience in TOD vs. other jurisdictions is the increasing prevalence of unsolicited proposals. The California Legislature, like some other governments, allows its public agencies to accept and review unsolicited proposals from the private sector, outside of the traditional RFP process. While the real practice varies and is sometimes limited (in timing, in scope, size, etc.), it is intended to engage private-sector innovation on projects that will result in the public good. Essentially, a government cannot issue an RFP for something it cannot precisely describe nor have the planning and funding in place. An unsolicited proposal can jumpstart a project by informing the public agency of its innovative solution, the benefits to transit ridership, housing goals and commitments to affordable housing. California’s transit agencies can then review the proposal for merit, and potentially choose to move forward with a modified RFP. The differentiation of a P2 from the public-private-partnership (P3) model is that the developer and the architect and 26 Railway Age // April 2019

transit consultant (i.e. Stantec) act as one entity, researching and putting the proposal together for review by the public agency. This whole process can begin with what we call a “What If” study—exploring a project model that will work for all parties and creating a path to eventual construction. This approach—which requires an integrated practice synthesizing urban design, transportation, transit, mixed use architecture and development—has the benefit of saving time, allowing for some creative and progressive solutions that make financial sense, and moving forward projects that could be years away if left to the traditional RFP process. “Grand Central West” As the paradigm of TOD/TOC in California continues to shift to involve private sector innovation, one project stands out as a potential marker for the future, with ripple effects across the state and the country. Diridon Station in San Jose has been a rail hub since it opened in 1935. The government currently plans to invest $10 billion, turning it into a multimodal transit hub that would spur development, add as many as 25,000 jobs and forever change the character of downtown San Jose. The project would eventually connect seven transit lines, including California high-speed rail, BART, Caltrain and the Santa Clara VTA. The city has estimated that the increased transit links will carry 140,000 passengers, increasing transit trips to the downtown eightfold.

An essential part of the project is San Jose Google Village. Redevelopment of more than 10 acres of land would be a significant financing anchor, with far-reaching benefits to the region. One such benefit would be much-needed housing that the city is prioritizing, having stated it wants 25% of the housing built near Diridon Station to be affordable and rent-restricted. Google has demonstrated that it is all-in, holding hundreds of public meetings and recently purchasing the Kearney Pattern Works Steel Foundry site—a key piece in the company’s master plan for the area. Diridon has the support of both government officials and the general public, in large part due to the transparency of the process. If the development moves forward, Diridon would represent more than just a TOD project—it would be an entire TransitOriented Community, brought to life by a private sector investment. San Jose is not the only city seeing the value in flexible TOD models to spur development and improve transit service and ridership. Progressive-minded cities across California and the country are changing zoning laws to allow for denser communities with reduced parking requirements and more affordable housing. Walkable, lively communities are once again where professionals want to live and work, and these cities are embracing taking their communities into a multimodal 21st century. This applies to traditional downtown cores, but we’re also seeing it in areas between large centers, where dying suburban malls are being turned into dense communities capable of supporting living, working and playing in the same place. Enhancing the urban environment and applying it to different contexts has the benefit of increasing economic growth and equity, solving transportation issues and building more integrated communities. True TOD has been around for a very long time—it’s as old as Paris, London and Amsterdam—but we are now finding new ways to apply it to 21st century America. Arturo Vasquez is a Principal with Stantec in San Francisco, and an architect, urban designer, and educator with over 30 years of experience. Patrick M. McKelvey, AIA is a Senior Principal with Stantec in Los Angeles, and an expert in transit facility planning, design and architecture. railwayage.com

DATA1 ANALYTICS Class Focus: CN

IMPROVING

SAFETY

Through Data Analytics

By Allan M Zarembski, Ph.D., P.E., F.A.S.M.E., Hon. Mbr. AREMA, Professor of Practice and Director, Railroad Engineering and Safety Program, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware

Combining Big Data, analytics, machine learning and artificial intelligence.

he growing application of Data Analytics in monitoring track and rolling stock condition and in maintenance management has been the focus of a number of recent Railway Age articles, as well as several recent Big Data

railwayage.com

in Railroad Maintenance conferences held at the University of Delaware. However, Data Analytics also offers the potential for improved safety, through use of advanced modeling techniques, and the corresponding introduction of â&#x20AC;&#x153;risk managementâ&#x20AC;? to the analysis process. This focus on safety was a key part of a presentation by FRA Administrator Ronald Batory in the most recent University of Delaware Big Data conference, and was likewise echoed in several presentations that showed how Data Analytics has evolved in its implementation, moving in many cases from maintenance management to safety

management. Among the key observations that have emerged are that not all data is actionable; predicting that a failure will occur has limited value, if the failure mode cannot be predicted; for a maintenance crew, accurate and detailed information is required; and analytics can serve as a guide to which actions are most effective. Figure 1 illustrates the evolution of Data Analytics application in the areas of improved maintenance of equipment and rolling stock with increasingly available onboard and wayside diagnostic and condition data. The application to safety parallels this approach. At the basic level, use of April 2019 // Railway Age 27

DATA ANALYTICS New tools, new processes , New ways of working System Availability Predictive Maintenance

Time or Mileage based Maintenance

CBM (Condition-based Maintenance) remote monitored

periodic

RCM (ReliabilityCentered Maintenance)

remote monitored

periodic

Corrective Maintenance upon failure

Maintenance productivity (reduction of material & labour cost) ALSTOM - 26/03/2018– P 1 © ALSTOM 2015. All rights reserved. Information contained in this document is indicative only. No representation or warranty is given or sho uld be relied on that it is complete or correct or will apply to any particular project. This will depend on the technical and commercial circumstances. It is provided without liability and is subject to change without notice. Reproduction, use or disclosure to third parties, without express written authority, is strictly prohibited.

Figure 1: Evolution of Maintenance with Improved Data Analytics [4]

Acquisition, Processing & Storage of RS CBM Data Maintenance data architecture Traction

Brake ManMachine Interface HVAC sensor

…

TCMS Ethernet network

Events Status

I/O

Network traffic

Events, Status, GPS location… NetBox

TrainTracer CFM Alerts, Counters, Raw data …

MaintBox

etc. Predictive Maintenance Data

Rules (alerts, recording…) Gateway for add. Sensors

Train Scanner

RULES ENGINE

Main CPU

MMS (Maintenance Management System)

Local centralized connection (Laptop)

sensor

Additional Sensors on Ethernet

Figure 2: Use of Data in Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) of Rolling Stock [5]

data analytics allows for a progression from “reactive” mode or corrective maintenance; waiting for something to fail and then fixing it, to predictive mode. This reactive mode is the least desirable approach from a safety point of view. The next level, traditional time- or mileage-based maintenance, replaces key components after a period of time or miles travelled, often set through the use of reliability analysis of the components 28 Railway Age // April 2019

and such traditional parameters as mean time between failures. Using probabilistic analysis, such as “six sigma,” it is possible to start reducing the risk of failure and thus improve safety. Condition-based maintenance, particularly when based on real-time or near-real-time monitoring, using on-board and wayside train scanner data as illustrated in Figure 2, offers an improved level of safety, since it allows for monitoring of key component condition,

and identification of components that can potentially be approaching maintenance or safety limits. However, the real potential for improvements in maintenance and safety come from the implementation of predictive modeling using trend analysis and forecasting modeling with inputs from multiple data sources. This allows for the “prediction” of critical conditions with sufficient time to take action to avoid rapid degradation and failure. In fact, predictive maintenance can be defined as using historical and real-time data to predict when a component will fail. This approach is at the forefront of current research because it provides maintenance personnel advanced “warning” of problems and potential failures. Figure 3 illustrates the process of defining the problem and the available data, developing the necessary tools, i.e. predictive models, and then deploying these models through interactive data integration and “learning.” This is the “decision support/intelligent software” portion of Data Analytics that offers the potential for a higher-level predictive model than the traditional “linear regression” model. This further opens the way for probabilistic-based risk analyses, which look not only at component degradation rate, but the probability that that component will fail in a catastrophic manner, with an associated high potential for a derailment. This was seen at the 2018 Big Data conference, where several FRA-sponsored activities focusing on component failure risk, including Development of Artificial Intelligence (AI)-aided risk analysis models; development of integrated component failure and derailment risk analysis also included were simulation frameworks such as development of a Bayesian analytical framework for predicting the probability of component failure; prediction of derailment consequence using multivariate data analyses; and evaluation of segmentspecific risk and assessment of the impacts of various track risk management strategies. Such probabilistic-based risk analyses make use of a range of Data Analytics techniques to include, but not limited to Machine Learning (Supervised, Unsupervised, Reinforcement); AI for Machine Learning (ANN, Artificial Neural Networks; DNN, Deep Neural Networks; SVM, Support railwayage.com

DATA ANALYTICS Vector Machines; Bayesian networks); and Probabilistic Models (Regression, Logistic Regression, Bayesian Inference). New techniques and applications are constantly emerging, and taking advantage of ever-increasing computing power and the plethora of data streams that continue to evolve. This is where the greatest potential for improved safety exists: Using Data Analytics to assess the risk of component failure and associated derailment events, and devising appropriate risk-based strategies to reduce the risk of a catastrophic event such as a derailment. Finally, the question arises of what comes after the predictive maintenance and safety approach. One speaker at the Big Data conference introduced the concept of Prescriptive Maintenance, using historical plus real-time asset condition data to predict failure, provide guidance on how to fix the problem and then proceed and act on this guidance. Thus, Prescriptive Maintenance requires that various asset management and maintenance systems be well-integrated,

railwayage.com

Streamline the Analytics Process Operational Stage

• Streamline and automate the deployment of models • Enable live monitoring of model performance

Model Monitoring & Tuning

Problem D fi iti Definition

D a Intg. & Data Model M D eployment Deployment

Data a tion Preparation

Research Stage

• Reduce effort for data analysis and preparation • Enable citizendata scientists • Streamline prototype creation • Leverage Data Platform toolsets

Data Exploration Ex xp ploration & Feature Selection S election e

Model V Validation & Optimizati Optimization Model Mo Proto otyping Prototyping

Figure 3: Application of Data Analytics in Predictive Model Development [6]

with the prescriptive system actually issuing a work order to field personnel and overseeing the entire workflow. To accomplish this, prescriptive maintenance systems must be “cognitive,” or have the ability to think, a technology that is at the intersection of Big Data, analytics, machine learning and AI. The potential for improved safety as

well as for enhanced operations and more effective and cost-efficient maintenance are key drivers in this evolution from reactive to predictive to prescriptive maintenance, with Data Analytics offering new and innovative opportunities to improve all aspects of railway operations, and in particular, safety.

April 2019 // Railway Age 29

RailInc RAILCAR REVIEW

North American Freight Railcar Review

Eight Years of Growth Fleet size continues to climb as average age remains stable.

ailinc’s annual analysis of the North American revenueearning fleet reveals that the total fleet increased slightly in 2018, with one-half of the major groups—covered hoppers, tanks and flats—accounting for the growth. One of the smallest car types, hoppers, continued its decline in 2018. The average age of cars in the revenue-earning fleet was slightly up, and new cars again trended large, with the majority having Gross Rail Loads (GRL) of 286,000 pounds. Detailed analysis reveals

30 Railway Age // April 2019

the following trends: • The total fleet size was up 0.7% from year-end 2017 to year-end 2018, compared with a 0.3% increase the previous year. • Covered hoppers grew the most of all the car types, up 2.6%, followed by tank cars, up 0.6%. It was the ninth consecutive year of decline for hoppers, down 2.7%, and gondolas were also down, by 1.3%. Boxcars—the least populous of the major groups—were slightly down, by less than 0.5%. • After six consecutive years of little decline to no change, the average age of the fleet

increased to only 19.6 years, suggesting new cars were joining the fleet at a nearly equal rate to older cars that were exiting. • The number of GRL 286 cars added to the fleet declined by about 8% in 2018. However, these cars accounted for 92% of all new additions in 2018 and about 84% in the last decade. Larger cars enable operational efficiencies that reduce costs and ease logistics challenges. The revenue-earning fleet (a subset of the North American fleet largely composed of freight cars that can be used in interchange railwayage.com

Jack Lindquist

By David Humphrey, Ph.D., Senior Data Scientist, Railinc Corp., for Railway Age

Railinc RAILCAR REVIEW service and against which an interline waybill can be placed) realized a net increase of 11,000 cars in 2018. At the end of 2018, the revenue-earning freight car fleet totaled 1.65 million units, up 0.7% from the previous year (see Figure 1). Covered hoppers and tanks grew in 2018, increasing by 2.6 and half a percent, respectively, over 2017. Hoppers (2.7%), gondolas (1.3%) and boxcars (less than 1%) all declined. The average age of railcars in the revenue-earning fleet in 2018 was 19.6 years, a 0.1-increase from 2017 (see Figure 2). This continues to hold steady at just about 20 years, as it has done since Railinc implemented the new Umler system in 2009. The near-stability in the fleet suggests that new cars are added at close to the same rate as old cars are exiting. About 86,000 new cars joined the revenueearning fleet in the last two years (Figure 3). However, 2018 saw the lowest number of car additions since 2010. The decline in the number of cars added to the fleet in 2018 reflects the most recent robust building cycle rather than any broader economic trends. In the past 25 years, railcars with a GRL of 286,000 pounds have accounted for 78% of all new additions to the fleet. This trend continued in 2018, as 92% of new equipment were GRL 286 cars (see Figure 4). The number of GRL 263 cars added in 2018 increased by about 200 cars from 2017. GRL 286 cars dominate among recent additions to the fleet because they enable operational efficiencies that reduce costs and ease logistics challenges. The fleet continues to add GRL 263 and GRL 220 cars, but at a much lower rate than GRL 286 cars. The last year non-GRL 286 cars led among new additions to the fleet was 1992.

saw a slight change compared to the previous year, with C113s falling two spots to fourth place. This propelled C214s and C112s to second and third place, respectively. As the demographics of the car types change, so do the average car size and the total combined capacity of all the units in a car type. For example, the total tank subfleet capacity has increased by 47.2% since 2009. Most new tanks are large, which has pushed the average car size up by 7.2%. The total subfleet capacity for covered hoppers has increased, as well, by about 20%. However, the average car size has decreased because most new covered hoppers are small. In the past decade, the boxcar population has decreased, which has driven down the total boxcar subfleet capacity. Large boxcars

have joined the fleet, which led to an increase in average car size, but not at a fast-enough rate to offset the population loss. From 2011 to 2016, this report presented data on individual car types grouped by their capacity and GRL, which is the sum of the weight of the car plus the lading within the car and represents the maximum allowed loaded weight of the car. As of 2017, the report now presents select car types by the kinds of commodities they carry. This provides a more nuanced view of these car types. For example, while covered hoppers carry grain, sand, plastic pellets and other commodities, the types of covered hoppers that transport each commodity are very different in their characteristics. Plastics: Covered hoppers are commonly

Figure 1: North American Freight Car Fleet, by Group (Counts at year end, shown in thousands)

Figure 2: North American Freight Car Fleet, Average Age at Year End (Revenue Earning Fleet)

Subfleet Trends The revenue-earning fleet of freight cars is made up of six subfleets: hopper, covered hopper, gondolas, flats, tank cars and boxcars. It excludes locomotives, intermodal trailers and containers, maintenanceof-way equipment and end-of-train devices. More than 700 Equipment Type Codes (ETC) appear in the Umler equipment registry. Of those, 10 ETC accounted for 52% of the revenue-earning fleet in 2018. For the fourth time since 2011, nine of the top 10 car types were either tank cars or covered hoppersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the two largest car types in the revenue-earning fleet. The 2018 rankings railwayage.com

April 2019 // Railway Age 31

RailInc RAILCAR REVIEW Figure 3: North American Freight Car Fleet, Number of Cars, by Age (Revenue Earning Fleet)

used to ship plastic pellets. This commodity subfleet added about 24,000 cars in the last four years, more than the previous 14 years combined. Cars with equipment type code C214 comprise nearly the entire commodity subfleet as defined here, making up 8% of the revenue-earning fleet. They are the

second most-populous equipment type. New railcars have trended large. Of the cars added to the commodity subfleet in the last 20 years, about 93% have a capacity of 6,000 cubic feet or more. Grain and fertilizer: Railroads move grain and fertilizer in large covered hoppers.

The Railway Educational Bureau Upda

Single Car Air Brake Test Procedures Manual

BKSCTD

Single Car Air Brake Test Pro. Man.

$36.95

Emergency Responder’s Guide to Railroad Incidents is the first training manual on the entire scope of railroad emergencies addressing hazards, safe operating procedures, and resources responders can apply to incidents involving rail operation.

BKERGRAIL Emergency Response

Introduction to North American Railway Signaling

North American Signaling

BKRRNN

$56.95

$33.00

Guide to Freight Car Couplers and Draft Gear Systems Updated 2018. This book covers comprehensive information that identifies the various components, identification, inspection and gauging details for various systems used on railway freight cars.

Introduction to North American Railway Signaling covers the basics of signaling philosophy and techniques.This is the book you need for information pertaining to signaling systems used in the various rail transportation modes in North America.

BKINARS

Railroad Resources Emergency Responder’s Guide to Railroad Incidents

ted

Updated 2018. Everyone using the Single Car Test Device to check their air brake system will benefit from this manual. Compliant with the latest Code of Air Brake System Tests for Freight Equipment: AAR Standard S-486.

This subfleet added about 16,000 new cars in the last two years and makes up about 17% of the revenue-earning fleet. Two types of covered hoppers—C113 and C114—account for about 95% of the commodity subfleet and are in the top five of the most-populous equipment types in the revenue-earning fleet. Larger covered hoppers with capacities of at least 5,000 cubic feet made up nearly 87% of the additions to the commodity subfleet in the last 20 years. Sand and cement: Small covered hoppers are used to move sand and cement. Over the last eight years, the revenue-earning fleet has added almost 77,000 of four covered hopper equipment types—C111, C112, C311 and C312. The most prevalent ETC in this subfleet is the C112, which is also the third mostpopulous equipment type in 2018. Because of the density of sand and cement, the cars that carry these commodities tend to be smaller. Of the cars in the subfleet, almost all have a capacity of just over 3,000 cubic feet. Coal: Coal is shipped primarily in gondolas and open hoppers. These cars still

BKCDG

Guide to Freight Car Couplers and Draft Gear Systems

$67.95

The Railroad What it is, What it does

Guide to Locomotive Mechanical Maintenance - SD and GP Locomotives

The fifth edition of The Railroad: What It Is, What it Does is even more valuable than before. Inside you’ll find a comprehensive look at how today’s railroads function—from equipment to procedures and marketing to maintenance.

The second edition of this easy-to-follow guide has been designed as a job aid for mechanical department staff performing locomotive mechanical scheduled maintenance work on General Motors’ SD and GP locomotives.

What it is What it does

The Railway Educational Bureau 1809 Capitol Ave., Omaha NE, 68102 www.RailwayEducationalBureau.com 32 Railway Age // April 2019

$46.95

BKGLMM

$37.50

Guide to Locomotive Mech. Maint.

800-228-9670

www.transalert.com

Add Shipping & Handling if your merchandise subtotal is: U.S.A. CAN U.S.A. CAN

25.01 - 50.00 50.01 - 75.00 75.01 - 100.00

10.78 16.80 11.99 21.20 14.30 27.95

100.01 - 150.00 16.28 36.60 150.01 - 200.00 19.03 49.15 200.01 - 300.00 23.10 61.20

Orders over $300, call for shipping

railwayage.com

Railinc RAILCAR REVIEW made up a sizable portion of the revenueearning fleet—13%, or 209,000 railcars— in 2017 and 2018. About 72% of those cars were added between 1992 and 2012. Aggregates: Commodities such as limestone and crushed stone are shipped in gondolas and open hoppers. The number of these car types added to the revenue-earning fleet in 2017 and 2018 was down nearly 29% over the previous two-year period. Boxcars: Boxcars are used to ship a wide variety of products—from consumer goods to automotive parts. The boxcar fleet is older than other car types. Box ars made in the last two years account for about 38% of all boxcars added to the fleet in the past 12 years. Conclusion The North American railcar fleet grew slightly in 2018. The total size of the revenue-earning fleet increased for the eighth consecutive year, up 0.7% from year-end 2017 to year-end 2018. The revenue-earning fleet added cars in half of its subfleets: flats; covered hoppers;

Figure 4: North American Freight Car Fleet, Number of Cars, by Age and GRL

and tanks. All other subfleets decreased, with hoppers declining the most. The average age of cars in the revenueearning fleet increased slightly to 19.6 years after one year of no change, suggesting new cars are joining the fleet at close to the same rate as older cars are exiting. GRL 286 cars continue to predominate

among new additions to the revenue-earning fleet. This size of car accounted for about 92% of all new additions to the fleet in 2018. Larger cars enable operational efficiencies that reduce costs and ease logistics challenges. Railinc is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads. For more information, please visit www.railinc.com

SEEING is BELIEVING Day or Night, Aldon® Switch Cube® Indicators remove the guesswork when approaching a switch. Day

Main Track

Side Track

Points end of switch lined for left turnout.

Main Track

Side Track

Frog end of switch lined for left turnout.

For enhanced visibility at night we now offer Aldon® SWITCH CUBE® Indicator which is solar-powered with LED illuminated symbols. see Aldon® Switch Cube® in action: aldonco.com/SC

Aldon Company Inc., Waukegan, IL 60087 847. 623. 8800 | aldonco.com | e-rail@aldonco.com railwayage.com

April 2019 // Railway Age 33

TTCI

Dynamometer Testing of

Tread-Conditioning Brake Shoes Removing variables that can influence revenue service tests.

By Scott Cummings, Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

read-conditioning (TC) brake shoes are often touted as a way for car owners to improve the service life of not only the brake shoes themselves, but also the service life of wheelsets by reducing the impact loads caused by tread running surface irregularities. Some, but not all, previous revenue service tests conducted by railroads and car owners have supported such claims. Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI) conducted laboratory dynamometer testing as part of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Strategic Research Initiatives Program to evaluate the relative performance of TC brake shoes in comparison to standard high-friction composition (HFC) shoes. Dynamometer testing removes many of the variables that can influence revenue service tests. Nine brake shoes were tested: three HFC shoes, three TC shoes from one manufacturer and three TC shoes from another manufacturer. Each shoe was matched with a specific wheel for testing. To prepare the wheels for the test, 3-inch-long flat spots were ground into the tread surface of each wheel of freshly trued wheelsets. The wheelsets were installed under loaded cars and pulled for 200 miles to cold-work the tread surface of the wheels. Each wheel then was demounted from the axle and nine of the wheels were selected for the hub modifications necessary to mount on the dynamometer. Portions of the AAR M-997 specification were used to construct a test matrix of stop tests and grade-braking tests for each of the nine paired brake shoes and wheels. Each brake shoe was subjected to more than 100 stop tests and nearly 13 hours of grade braking on the dynamometer. Brake shoe wear was reasonably uniform across the surface of each brake shoe. Transverse wheel profiles at multiple circumferential locations around the wheel were captured before and

34 Railway Age // April 2019

after testing to determine the nominal wheel wear at locations not near the flat spot. The ability of the brake shoe to affect the geometry of wheel tread surface irregularities was quantified by the amount of discernable wear on the wheel near the flat spot. The photo shows an example of a groove that was worn into the wheel tread by the brake shoe during testing. The groove effectively reduces the depth of the flat spot in comparison to the nearby tread surface. This wear pattern was observed for every shoe/wheel combination tested. By overlaying the initial and final transverse wheel profiles measured at a location 6 inches beyond the center of the flat spot in the direction of rotation, the relative reduction in local radial runout was calculated. Analysis of the results showed that one type of TC brake shoe was not statistically different from the HFC shoes in terms of brake shoe wear, wheel wear near the flat spots or nominal wheel wear at locations not near the flat spots. The other type of TC brake shoe produced statistically higher

brake shoe wear and no statistical difference in wheel wear compared to the other shoes tested. One anomalous individual TC brake shoe (of the three shoes of this type that were tested) experienced more brake shoe wear and more wheel wear near the flat spot for reasons not obviously related to the testing parameters. In summary, laboratory dynamometer testing showed no statistical difference in the nominal wheel wear or local radial runout reduction near a 3-inch flat spot for any of the types of brake shoes. At this time no further laboratory or revenue testing is being planned. REFERENCES 1. Cummings, S. “Review of Tread Conditioning Brake Shoe Service Test Results” Technology Digest TD-16-020. AAR/TTCI, Pueblo, CO, June 2016. 2. AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices. Section E. Brakes and Brake Equipment. “Brake Shoe, High-Friction Tread Conditioning—High Capacity.” Standard M-997. Adopted 2008.

railwayage.com

Perspective

FRA Must Demonstrate Courage and Vision

t his swearing in early last year, FRA Administrator Ron Batory wisely observed: “You cannot fear failure. If you do, it becomes a lock on the door that keeps you from entering the unknown side of creative innovation.” Since then, significant strides continue to be made in the development of autonomous vehicles. Just a few months ago, Walmart and Ford announced they would be partnering to provide self-driving home-delivery service using autonomous cars. Every major automobile manufacturer is working toward a driverless vehicle. And urban planners are seriously considering a world with no parking garages. This rapidly accelerating progress might have seemed improbable a year ago when, in March 2018, an Uber self-driving car struck a bicyclist in Tempe, Ariz. But by December, Waymo was pushing new boundaries, offering riders access to the first driverless car service, only 10 miles away in Phoenix. The resilient surge of innovation in the autonomous vehicle space is no coincidence, and owes much of its momentum to DOT’s consistent and conspicuous public support of technology. Despite the fact that all realworld testing carries some initial risk, DOT has not allowed fear of that risk to alter its undeniable conclusion that the long-term safety benefits of autonomous vehicles will be overwhelming. In DOT’s most recent guidance document, Automated Vehicles 3.0, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao reiterates this very point, emphasizing that “automation has the potential to impact safety significantly—by reducing crashes caused by human error, including crashes involving impaired or distracted drivers, and saving lives.” And while she acknowledges that “[t]he public has legitimate concerns about the safety, security and privacy of automated technology,” she ultimately charges vehicle manufacturers not to be deterred by these issues, but “to step up and help address these concerns and help inform the public about the benefits of automation.” This courage of conviction, even in the face of some early challenges, is exactly what FRA Administrator Batory sought to encourage, lest fear indeed become a “lock” railwayage.com

that precludes innovators from accomplishing so much potential good for society. Now, the Administrator’s own agency must decide if it will make similar efforts to lead safety-enhancing change by acting to support the development of transformational new rail technologies. FRA’s choice is made simpler, given that railroads, which operate on separate fixed tracks, present an easier application of many technologies. In a world where DOT has vigorously supported the automation of millions of interacting cars and trucks, FRA’s support for similar—and simpler— opportunities to automate many different aspects of rail operations seems like an obvious and less controversial way to facilitate analogous rail-safety benefits. Indeed, FRA’s own data indicates that more than one-third of train accidents are caused by human error, many of which could be eliminated by integrating automated processes into rail operations. Encouragingly, FRA made progress last year when it issued a request for information on automation in the rail industry. In response, Norfolk Southern provided substantive insight into the many technologies available to automate various aspects of our network—from locomotives and dispatch, to yard operations and inspections. FRA must now demonstrate its courage and vision by officially acting to promote the safety benefits of such technologies. By issuing guidance encouraging railroads and third-party technology vendors to pursue automation, FRA would align itself with the rest of DOT, providing critical leadership in the quest to develop new life-saving technologies. Speaking for Norfolk Southern, we are firmly committed to developing high-tech tools that will improve the safety and efficiency of our operations. Automated and predictive technologies will open a new frontier of operational improvements, and we are working hard to realize these benefits and reimagine a safer, more reliable future for freight transportation. Yet despite the best efforts of our most gifted innovators, we cannot unlock the full spectrum of technological possibility without FRA’s support. We need FRA to prepare proactively for

together, We can boldly embrace the inevitable changes comiing.” new technologies, encouraging the investment needed for a dynamic and flexible automated future. We need FRA to remain technology-neutral and promote competition and innovation as a means to achieve safety. We need FRA to remove barriers to technological advances by modernizing or eliminating outdated regulations and promoting a consistent regulatory environment. And we need FRA to prioritize safety, but at the same time remain steadfast in its conviction that new technologies, if responsibly pursued, will lead to an undeniably safer future. If these concepts sound familiar, it should come as no surprise—they mirror the exact principles set forth by DOT in Automated Vehicles 3.0. Accordingly, we simply ask FRA to act on what DOT has already acknowledged—that new technologies like automation will dramatically change transportation, including rail transportation, for the better. Under the leadership of Administrator Batory, we are confident the agency will find the courage to take action and advance this critical issue. Together, we can boldly embrace the inevitable change on the horizon and work toward a safer and more efficient future for our industry, and our nation.

JOHN SCHEIB Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer Norfolk Southern

April 2019 // Railway Age 35

People / 100 years / Events APRIL 24-25, 2019

JOHN PONZIO

LIGHT RAIL, PRESENTED BY RAILWAY AGE AND RT&S

STV

High profile: John Ponzio, an experienced rail and transit sys-

tems engineer whose leadership has led to significant growth at STV, has been promoted to Senior Vice President, National Systems Group. Ponzio has 20 years of experience within the transit industry, having begun his career at STV as a junior engineer with the firm’s Systems Group. Since then, he has been instrumental in fostering the practice’s growth from four to its current staff of 130 professionals. Under Ponzio’s purview, the Systems Group has expanded to include multidisciplinary expertise across a broad spectrum of services for the firm’s clients in rail/transit operations, intelligent transportation systems, safety, corrosion control, cathodic protection and security and resilience services. Based in STV’s Philadelphia office, Ponzio will manage the firm’s national team of experts to further grow the practice into new areas and continue to focus on providing quality services to its existing clients.

trategic Rail Finance has named rail industry veteran Carl Belke as Executive Consultant in the firm’s Freight Rail Business Advisory practice. Belke has 45 years of freight rail experience in management, strategy, engineering, operations, government advocacy and public policy. Belke has held positions as Chief Operating Officer and Chief Engineer at multiple short line and Class I railroads. In addition he holds several positions in railroad-affiliated organizations, currently serving as Executive Board Member and Engineering Committee Chairman of the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association. Sabrina Drago has joined WSP USA as Sacramento transportation office lead. Drago, a registered civil engineer in California and Arizona, will spearhead the firm’s growth efforts, including “working closely with clients toward making their projects successful, recruiting and retaining top industry talent, and enhancing the firm’s

brand in the local industry.” Thomas Jenkins, P.E., has joined HNTB Corp. as a national transit/rail consultant, based in the firm’s Santa Ana, Calif., office Kevin Sheys and Ed Fishman have joined the Washington, D.C. office of law firm Hogan Lovells, in the Global Transportation Regulatory practice. They join Hogan Lovells from Nossaman LLP. Their practice advises clients on rail and public transit regulatory and transactional matters, including but not limited to railroad mergers, acquisitions, operations and maintenance arrangements, transportation infrastructure projects, emerging transportation technology, safety compliance, transportation of hazardous materials, and railroad labor, employment, and retirement tax and benefit matters. Ekyrail Enterprises named Yan Taillon as president. A 20-year-plus industry veteran, Taillon succeeds his father, Christian, as Ekyrail’s head. The two founded the company in 2010.

100 years ago in railway age April 1919

Distribution of Railroad Security Holdings The number of stockholders for 572 Class I railroads and their non-operating subsidiaries on December 31, 1917, was 627,930, and the aggregate number of shares was 97,475,776, according to a report compiled by the Bureau of Statistics of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The number of shares held by the 20 largest holders in each road, aggregating 8,301 names of persons, estates, corporations or partnerships, was 50,873,322, or a little more than one-half of the total. 36 Railway Age // April 2019

Le Méridien Delfina Santa Monica, Santa Monica, Calif. https://www.railwayage.com/lightrail/

may 8, 2019

Railroad Day on Capitol Hill 2019, organized by the american Short Line and Regional Railroad association, Association of American Railroads, National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association, Railway Supply Institute, Railway Engineering Maintenance Suppliers Association and Railway Systems Suppliers Inc. Washington, D.C. https://www.aslrra.org/web/ Events/2019_Railroad_Day/web/ Events/2019_Railroad_Day/default. aspx?hkey=7757b62c-e77f-4b759918-bc0db44cb93c

june 5-6, 2019

RAIL INSIGHTS 2019, PRESENTED BY RAILWAY AGE Union League Club, Chicago, Ill. https://www.railwayage.com/insights/

SEPTEMBER 22-25, 2019

RAILWAY INTERCHANGE 2019, PRESENTED BY RSI, REMSA, RSSI, AREMA, and the Coordinated Mechanical Associations (CMA). Minneapolis, Minn. https://railwayinterchange.org/ info@railwayinterchange.org. exhibitionsponsorships@ railwayinterchange.org. aremaconferencesponsorships@ railwayinterchange.org. mediainquiries@railwayinterchange.org.

railwayage.com

Products Work Safely With ALDON® Switch Cube® Direction Indicators

Clear-cut, unambiguous symbols and colors show switch alignment

Colors and symbols can be seen from 200 feet away, from either end

Solar-powered illuminated model

Derail switch application

Double Yellow Left

Double Yellow Right

Red Stop Left

Red Stop Right

railwayage.com

Double Red Left

Double Red Right

Aldon Company’s made-to-order Switch Cube® Direction Indicators offer clear-cut, unambiguous symbols and colors to show how a switch is lined. Workers don’t have to guess as to which converging track is open to movement. From either end of the switch, the device’s arrows make that very clear. The Switch Cube® Indicator bolts to mast on any switch stand brand. Its steel platform holds four sign plates, 8 inches x 10 inches, with a high-intensity reflective facing. When mounted on a switch stand mast, the top of the Cube is 15 inches above the top of the rail. Colors and clear-cut symbols can be seen 200 feet away from either end of the switch. There are three choices of colors/symbols: Double Yellow Left and Right Turnout, Double Red Left and Right Turnout Turnout, and Red Stop Left and Right Turnout. The Solar-Powered Illuminated Model offers half-mile visibility, and identification at 250 feet. Battery life averages four to five years. One daytime charge provides nine days and nights of illumination. The flashing signs appear at dusk and stop automatically at dawn. Switch Cube® Indicators for Wye Track Switches can be configured for a simple wye (left/right) and a three-point turning wye track. Switch Cube® Indicators for Derail Switches are offered in regular or illuminated configuration. Watch the Switch Cube® Indicator in action at www.aldonco.com/SC. For more information, call 847-623-8800.

Switch Cube® Indicators for derail switches, regular and illuminated

April 2019 // Railway Age 37

equipment Sale/Leasing

RECRUITMENT EDNA A. RICE, EXECUTIVE RECRUITER, INC.

Available for Lease

The world’s most accomplished executive search firm specializing in the rail and transportation industries. With 31 years’ experience, we possess the industry-specific knowledge and expertise needed to consistently deliver the exceptional results one would expect for both our clients and our candidates.

3000 cu ft Covered Hopper Cars 4650 cu ft Covered Hopper Cars 4300 cu ft Aluminum Rotary Open Top Gons 65 ft, 100-ton log spine cars equipped with six (6) log bunks 60 ft, 100 ton Plate F box cars, cushioned underframe and 10 ft plug doors 50 ft, 100 ton Plate C box cars, cushioned underframe and 10 ft plug doors 26,671 Gallon, 263k GRL, NC/NI Tank Cars

6750 West Loop South St. 735, Bellaire, TX 77401

Contact: Tom Monroe: 415-616-3472 Email: tmonroe@atel.com

(713) 667-0406 www.ednarice.com info@ednarice.com

PROFESSIONAL DIRECTORY

strAteGic PLANNiNG: • Commuter rail tranSitionS • fra ComplianCe programS • operationS auditing

WE START IT ALL

Kansas City Office (913) 661-2424 oPerAtioNs trAiNiNG & coNsULtiNG: www.tcsrailservices.com • engineer training & CertifiCation other services: • exCellent HiStory witH fra, ntSB • Staffing • interim management • meCHaniCal & part 238(Qmp)

3324RR STARTS ENGINES UP TO 3500HP 3370RR STARTS ENGINES UP TO 6000HP 214RR HEAVY USAGE STARTING FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT

www.STARTPAC.com

GET THE INSIDE SCOOP ON & OFF THE TRACK

OR CALL TOLL FREE 844.901.9987

RAILWAY AGE A4.indd 1

MARKETPLACE SALES

07/07/2017 09:15

Contact: Jeanine Acquart Ph: 212/620-7211 Fax: 212/633-1165 Email: jacquart@sbpub.com

RAIL BRIEF

The Weekly RT&S Email Newsletter Subscribe at: http://bit.ly/railbrief

ALL MAJOR CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED 38 Railway Age // April 2019

railwayage.com RTS_RailBriefAd_QuarterPage_Final_2019.indd 1

3/1/19 4:05 PM

Ad Index Company aldon company

Phone #

Fax #

847-623-8800

847-623-6139

URL/Email Address

Page #

e-rail@aldonco.com

812-697-3851

slurkins@anacostia.com

888-888-5909

cn.ca

Harsco rail

803-822-9160

803-82-8107

railinfo@harsco.com

katahdin railcar services

207-848-4287

207-848-4346

customerservice@krs-cleaning.com

ltk engineering services

215-641-8826

215-542-7676

tfurmaniak@ltk.com

pandrol usa L P

800-221-CLIP

856-4672994

progress rail A CATERPILLER CO

265-505-6402

265-505-6051

info@progressrail.com

Rail Insights

212-620-7208

212-633-1165

conferences@sbpub.com

20-21

railquip inc

770-458-4157

770-458-5365

sales@railquip.com

railway education bureau

402-346-4300

402-346-1783

bbrundige@sb-reb.com

32,C3

siemens corporation

800-SIEMENS

www.siemens.com

trainyard tech llc

724-443-8881

cra2@zooninternet.net

anacostia rail holdings

The Advertisers Index is an editorial feature maintained for the convenience of readers. It is not part of the advertiser contract and Railway Age assumes no responsibility for the correctness.

Advertising Sales MAIN OFFICE Jonathan Chalon Publisher 55 Broad St., 26th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 620-7224 Fax: (212) 633-1863 jchalon@sbpub.com AL, KY, Jonathan Chalon 55 Broad St., 26th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 620-7224 Fax: (212) 633-1863 jchalon@sbpub.com CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, PA, RI, SC, VT, VA, WV, Canada – Quebec and East, Ontario Jerome Marullo 55 Broad St., 26th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 620-7260 Fax: (212) 633-1863 jmarullo@sbpub.com

AR, AK, AZ, CA, CO, IA, ID, IL, In, KS, LA, MI, MN, MO, MS, MT, NE, NM, ND, NV, OK, OR, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WI, WY, Canada – AB, BC, MB, SK Heather Disabato 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1910 Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 683-5026 Fax: (312) 683-0131 hdisabato@sbpub.com The Netherlands, Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, Switzerland, North Germany, Middle East, South America, Africa (not South), Far East (Excluding Korea /China/India), All Others, Tenders Louise Cooper International Area Sales Manager The Priory, Syresham Gardens Haywards Heath, RH16 3LB United Kingdom +44-1444-416368 Fax: +44-(0)-1444-458185 lc@railjournal.co.uk

Scandinavia, Spain, Southern Germany, Austria, Korea, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Russia, Eastern Europe Baltic States, Recruitment Advertising Michael Boyle International Area Sales Manager Nils Michael Boyle Dorfstrasse 70, 6393 St. Ulrich, Austria. +011436767089872 mboyle@railjournal.com Italy, Italian-speaking Switzerland Dr. Fabio Potesta Media Point & Communications SRL Corte Lambruschini Corso Buenos Aires 8 V Piano, Genoa, Italy 16129 +39-10-570-4948 Fax: +39-10-553-0088 info@mediapointsrl.it

Japan Katsuhiro Ishii Ace Media Service, Inc. 12-6 4-Chome, Nishiiko, Adachi-Ku Tokyo 121-0824 Japan +81-3-5691-3335 Fax: +81-3-5691-3336 amkatsu@dream.com CLASSIFIED, PROFESSIONAL & EMPLOYMENT Jeanine Acquart 55 Broad St., 26th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 620-7211 Fax: (212) 633-1325 jacquart@sbpub.com

AILWAY GE railwayage.com

April 2019 // Railway Age 39

Perspective: Short Line & Regional

Once Upon a Time

nce upon a time”: Four words that begin some of the most enduring and beloved stories in Western Literature. They are enduring because they have been read over and over again by every generation, and because the hero overcomes obstacles to end up in a good place, and everybody lives happily ever after. The short line story is not a fairy tale, but it does have much in common with these well-known stories. Once upon a time, short lines were the unwanted cast-offs of the national railroad system. They were unloved by their previous owners because the light volumes generated by their customers could not justify the investment needed to make a go of it. Many were headed for abandonment, which would have left much of rural and small-town America cut off from the national freight railroad system. Then along came their Prince Charmings in the form of risk-taking entrepreneurs, who, using the economic freedoms and flexibility provided by the Staggers Act, borrowed large sums of money to purchase and rehabilitate these lines. They preserved service and jobs by making these lines more reliable, more competitive and much safer. In 1980 there were 8,000 miles of short line track. Today, short lines operate nearly 50,000 miles in 49 states. Fairy tales are kept alive because they are heard anew by every generation, passed down by eager storytellers. So it must be with the short line story if we want to continue the legislative successes we have enjoyed in Washington, the standing we have earned in our local communities and the trust we have built with our Class I partners. Short

Short Lines Operate Nearly

50,000 miles

in 49 States 40 Railway Age // April 2019

lines themselves are the best ones to tell the tale, and there are numerous opportunities to do so in the immediate future. In Washington, D.C., that opportunity is Railroad Day on the Hill on May 8, an allhands-on-deck effort by everyone involved in the railroad industry—railroaders, shippers, suppliers, rail labor leaders and local economic development officials. More than 350 Congressional meetings are scheduled. We stick to three messages: extending the 45G short line rehabilitation tax credit, opposing truck size and weight increases, and keeping regulations reasonable. It is a way to bring our message directly to decision-makers and, just as important, it is a show of force that demonstrates our industry’s diversity and geographic reach. It is an exhausting day that brings results. But it only works if you, your employees, your shippers and your local economic development officials make the trek. Most Congressional offices will only schedule a meeting if an individual from their district is among the participants, so it is important that you send as many of your people as possible. To register, go to www.aslrra.org/RailroadDay2019. And bring your walking shoes! Another great way to bring the short line story to life is to show your Congressman what you do in his or her own backyard, to tell the longer version of your success in preserving service, creating jobs and making railroading safe. It also allows you to provide your elected official with a room full of voting constituents including railroaders, shippers, suppliers and local officials. This provides the Congressman living proof that what is good for short lines is good for a diverse set of industries and individuals across his or her district. And it almost always attracts local media attention, “Nectar of the Gods” for an elected official. You can do this entirely by yourself, or you can ask ASLRRA to help. If your railroad wants to host a visit, our lobbyists can coordinate dates and logistics with your Congressman; assist with invites as appropriate to customers, local officials and the media; assist with the messaging and handout material; and attend the event to help ensure everything goes smoothly and to handle follow-up communication. All the short line has to do is welcome the

more than 100 new Members of congress don’t know our story.” Congressman and tell the story. The importance of these events cannot be overstated. They get the short line message front and center in the Congressman’s mind and they create a much wider open door when we need that access in Washington. We are no longer one of a thousand suit and tie lobbyists seeking a Congressman’s very limited time, but an extension of the good work you have done back home. To begin the meeting process, simply contact Will Resch at will. resch@cch-llc.com, or 202-715-2915, and he will take it from there. Once upon a time, tens of thousands of miles of railroad track were on the verge of abandonment. But no more! Our success today is a result of the short line industry’s hard work at rebuilding the first mile/last mile service of the national rail network. And that success is only recognized because short line companies have told that story over and over again. This year, there are more than 100 new members of Congress who have never heard that story. It is incumbent upon everyone in our industry to keep telling that story in the most visible way possible. Doing so will take a little time out of your day, but it is time well spent, and if you do it, everybody will live happily ever after.

Chuck Baker President ASLRRA

railwayage.com

Weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re current, are you? FRA Regulations Mechanical Department Regulations

FRA News:

A combined reprint of the Federal Regulations that apply specifically to the Mechanical Department. Spiral bound. Part Title 210 Railroad Noise Emission Compliance Regulations 215 Freight Car Safety Standards Updated 11-27-18. 216 Emergency Order Procedures: Railroad Track, Locomotive and Equipment Updated 11-27-18. 217 Railroad Operating Rules Updated 11-27-18. 218 Railroad Operating Practices - Blue Flag Rule Updated 11-27-18. 221 Rear End Marking Device-passenger, commuter/freight trains Updated 11-27-18. 223 Safety Glazing Standards Updated 11-27-18. 225 Railroad Accidents/Incidents Updated 11-27-18. 229 Locomotive Safety Standards Updated 1-22-19. 231 Safety Appliance Standards Updated 1-22-19. 232 Brake System Safety Standards Updated 11-27-18.

Part 215: Freight Car Safety Standards 49 CFR 215. Prescribes the minimum safety standards for freight cars allowed by the FRA. Includes safety standards for freight car components, car bodies, draft system, restricted equipment and stenciling. Softcover, spiral.

BKFSS

Order 25 or more and pay only $26.96 each

Part 229: Locomotive Safety Standards

Current FRA Regulations Item Code

FRA Part #

209 211 BKTSSAF 213 BKTSSG 213 BKWRK 214 BKFSS 215 BKROR 217 218 BKRRC 220 BKEND 221 BKSEP

Update effective

11-27-18 7-20-09 11-27-18 11-27-18 11-27-18 11-27-18 11-27-18 11-27-18 11-27-18 11-27-18

BKHORN 222 11-27-18 BKRFRS 224 11-27-18 BKHS BKLSS BKSLI BKSAS BKBRIDGE BKLER

228 229 230 231 237 240

11-27-18 1-22-19 11-27-18 1-22-19 11-27-18 11-27-18

BKCONDC 242 11-27-18

RR Communications Rear End Marking Device, Passenger, Commuter & Freight Trains Use of Locomotive Horns Reflectorization of Rail Freight Rolling Stock Hours of Service Locomotive Safety Standards Steam Locomotive Inspection RR Safety Appliance Standards Bridge Safety Standards Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Conductor Certification

232 11-27-18 Brake System Safety Standards

BKBSS

BKCAD

Each

RR Safety Enforcement Procedures & Rules of Practice Track Safety Standards (Subpart A-F) Track Safety Standards (Subpart G) RR Workplace Safety RR Freight Car Safety Standards RR Operating Rules and Practices

FRA Part #

BKSTC

BKPSS

40 219

233 234 235 236 238 239

30.50

27.45

10.95 10.00 10.50 8.50 10.50

9.86 9.00 9.45 7.65 9.45

6.75 6.25

6.10 5.60

14.75

13.25

7.95 12.50 12.50 25.95 10.50 7.95 14.25

7.15 11.25 11.25 23.35 9.45 7.15 12.85

12.50

11.25

Each

25 or more

16.50

14.85

Combined FRA Regulations Each

1-1-18 Drug and Alcohol Regulations in 11-27-18 the Workplace

38.95

35.00

11-27-18 Signal and Train Control Systems 11-27-18 11-27-18 1-22-19 1-22-19 Passenger Safety Standards 11-27-18

21.50

19.35

25.50

22.95

BKTM

Track and Rail and Infrastructure Integrity Compliance Manual - Volume II, Track Safety Standards - Part 213 Technical Manual for Signal and Train Control Rules. - Includes Part 233, 234, 235, 236

BKLSS

$12.50

Locomotive Safety Standards

Order 50 or more and pay only $11.25 each

Part 231: Railroad Safety Appliance Standards 49 CFR 231. General requirements for safety appliances including:â&#x20AC;&#x2C6;handbrakes, brake step, running boards, sill steps, ladders, end ladder clearance, roof handholds, side handholds, horizontal end handholds, vertical end handholds, and uncoupling levers. 106 pages. Softcover.

BKSAS

Railroad Safety Appliance Order 50 or more and pay only $9.45 each

$10.50

Part 232: Brake System Safety Standards 49 CFR 232. Regulations and general requirements for all train brake systems, inspection and testing, periodic maintenance and training requirements, and end-of-train devices for Class I, II, and III railroads. Plus the introduction of new brake system technology. Softcover. 155 pages. Softcover.

BKBSS

Brake System Safety Standards

$16.50

Order 25 or more and pay only $14.85 each

800-228-9670 www.transalert.com

Compliance Manuals BKINFRA18

The Locomotive Safety Standards cover the laws governing inspections and tests, brake system, draft system, suspension, electrical, cabs and cab equipment plus more! Softcover. Spiral bound. 130 pages.

50 or more

25 or more

Update effective

$8.50

Freight Car Safety Standards Order 50 or more and pay only $7.65 each

$29.95

Mech. Dept. Regs.

BKMFR

There are no new proposals or final rules to report for this issue. Be sure to check back next month to see if there are any changes to FRA regulations.

38.00 49.95

Updates from the Federal Register may be supplied in supplement form.

34.00 44.95

The Railway Educational Bureau 1809 Capitol Ave., Omaha NE, 68102 I (800) 228-9670 I (402) 346-4300 www.RailwayEducationalBureau.com

Add Shipping & Handling if your merchandise subtotal is: U.S.A. CAN U.S.A. CAN UP TO $10.00 $4.50 $8.75 25.01 - 50.00 10.78 16.80 10.01 - 25.00 7.92 12.65 50.01 - 75.00 11.99 21.20

Orders over $75, call for shipping

*Prices subject to change. Revision dates subject to change in accordance with laws published by the FRA. 4/19

FORWARD THINKING

US$2.9B

planning record 2019 capital investments to support capacity and enable trade

autonomous track inspection cars, 5 in 2019 and 3 in 2020, to make the railroad safer for our people and communities

260

new high-tech locomotives by 2020 to provide higher levels of service

For more information on how we move the economy and advance operational innovations, visit cn.ca.

CNC_191022_RailwayAge.indd 1

19-03-25 15:55 dossier : CNC-191022 description : Magazine

client : CN

date/modif.

Mars

rédaction

relecture

D.A.

épreuve à

100%