Review of the Federal Railroad Administration’s Research and Development Program (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

19 2 Track and Structures The Track and Structures Division (Track Division) manages a contracted research portfolio dedicated to reducing the frequency and severity of train derailments. The division seeks to further this objective through three re- search programs: track and structures, track–train interaction, and testing facilities and equipment. The track and structures program develops and promotes implementation of track inspection technologies, autonomous inspection methods, new techniques for monitoring track safety issues that are difficult to detect, and computer modeling capabilities. The track–train interaction program seeks to improve understanding of derailments aris- ing from the dynamics between the track and the components of the train, including through support for more effective modeling and simulation of vehicle–track interactions. The testing facilities and equipment program administers logistics and maintenance for Federal Railroad Administra- tion (FRA)- and U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT)-owned resources. This program includes track geometry cars and U.S. DOT’s Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado, where laborato- ries, testing equipment, and different types of track and railcars are used for experimentation and analysis. This chapter focuses on the track and structures and the track–train interaction programs, recognizing that these testing facilities and equipment are used to support both research programs. To provide insight into how the Track Division sets priorities for allo- cating budget, selecting projects, and managing the two research program areas, the track subcommittee asked FRA to provide data on derailments, their causes, and their severity and then to explain if and how such data are used for budgeting and project programming. The subcommittee then

20 REVIEW OF FRA’S R&D PROGRAM examined the extent to which budget allocations and project selections ap- pear to align with what the incident data suggest are the most significant safety concerns. The subcommittee then asked the Track Division staff to explain other tools, methods, and criteria used for priority setting and for evaluation of project and program results. To supplement this informa- tion, the subcommittee consulted external parties familiar with work of the Track Division, seeking their views on whether the division’s priorities align with safety needs and whether research has been effective in meeting these needs. Finally, the subcommittee took a closer look at five recent or current projects in the division’s portfolio. In each case, consideration is given to how the project was selected and procured, how the work was conducted (e.g., any partnering with industry), and how the results are used by industry to impact safety. Based on this review of safety data, information obtained from the dis- cussions with division staff and external parties, and insights gleaned from the sampled projects, this chapter concludes with several observations and a recommendation. ROLE OF DERAILMENT DATA IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF RESEARCH NEEDS As a starting point for assessing the Track Division’s two research pro- grams, the track subcommittee reviewed FRA data on the incidence and se- verity of derailments by cause. As discussed previously in Chapter 1, during the 5-year period from 2015 to 2019 an average of 1,300 derailments were reported to FRA annually (see Appendix A, Figure A-1). Of that total about 35 percent, or 450 to 500 per year, were derailments having track-related causes (see Table 2-1). Even more specifically, track component defects were the main track-related cause, occurring about twice as often as derailments caused by track-train interactions (more commonly known as vehicle–track interactions). Examples of track component defect causes are broken rails and insecure switch fasteners. Examples of vehicle–track interaction causes are wide gauge and track misalignment. Table 2-2 shows the top causes of track-related derailments—that is, the seven causes that accounted for more than half of all these derailments, which include wide gauge and broken rail. However, when considering in- cident severity based on reportable damage,1 a different set of causes stand 1 Reportable damage includes labor costs and all other costs to repair or replace in-kind, damaged on-track equipment, signals, track, track structures, or roadbed. Reportable damage does not include the cost of clearing a wreck; however, additional damage to the above-listed items caused while clearing the wreck is to be included in the damage estimate (Federal Rail- road Administration Office of Railroad Safety 2011, 20). The reporting threshold is $10,700 for 2019 (Federal Railroad Administration 2019).

TRACK AND STRUCTURES 21 out. As shown in Figure 2-1, just four causes—detail fractures (fracturing near the rail head), track alignment irregularities (buckled track), wide gauge associated with defective or missing crossties, and roadbed issues (e.g., defects in the earthen foundation on top of which the ties, rails, and ballast lie)—accounted for more than one-third of total damage. Moreover, more than 70 percent of total damage was attributed to just 14 causes. Based on these incident data, one might expect the Track Division to place a heavy emphasis on research aimed at reducing the occurrence of these top causes of track-related derailments, especially those track defect causes associated with a large majority of reportable damage. While the Track Divi- sion (like other Office of Research, Development, and Technology [RD&T] divisions) does not categorize its program areas by the type of incident causes being addressed, the division chief and program managers explained to the subcommittee that safety data inform project selection. Indeed, assigning incident causes to either of the two program areas can be problematic. They TABLE 2-1 Number of Derailments Resulting from Track-Related Causes, Including Track Component Defects and Vehicle–Track Interactions, Reported to FRA Derailments 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Track component defects 326 309 286 339 296 Vehicle–track interactions 176 187 175 181 173 Total 502 496 461 520 469 NOTE: The committee used its judgment to make a determination of which incident causes could generally be attributed to a program area. SOURCE: Federal Railroad Administration n.d.b. TABLE 2-2 Five Most Frequent Track-Related Derailment Causes Reported to FRA, 2015–2019 Derailment Causes Number of Incidents Wide gauge due to defective or missing crossties 418 Broken rail—Detail fracture from shelling or head check 218 Switch point worn or broken 164 Wide gauge due to defective/missing spikes/other rail fasteners 131 Broken rail—Transverse/compound fissure 100 Broken rail—Vertical split head 98 Roadbed settled or soft 90 SOURCE: Federal Railroad Administration n.d.b.

22 REVIEW OF FRA’S R&D PROGRAM FIGURE 2-1 Track-caused incidents that resulted in damage valued at $10 million or greater and were reported to FRA in millions of dollars from 2015 to 2019. NOTE: Inset shows all 63 incident causes and how the top 14 account for more than 70 percent of all reported damages. SOURCE: Federal Railroad Administration 2020b. reported that the most severe incidents drive the allocation of resources to research projects that are aimed at reducing or eliminating their causes, but they also noted that other factors can be influential as discussed below. A theme that characterizes many of the Track Division projects is in- novation in track inspection capabilities to help reduce the incidence of derailments caused by track defects. Of the 39 active projects in 2019, most involved advanced track inspection technologies that can augment or sub- stitute for inspections conducted by safety personnel. Other projects were intended to provide technical support for enforcement of FRA’s track safety standards. Examples include thermal and subsurface imaging to detect de- fects and machine learning to predict where tracks may fail in the future to better focus inspection resources on managing by prevention. $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 D et ai l f ra ct u re ( sh el lin g /h ea d c h ec k) Tr ac k al ig n m en t ir re g u la ri ty (b u ck le d /s u n k in ks ) W id e g au g e (d ef ec ti ve /m is si n g c ro ss ti es ) R o ad b ed s et tl e o r so ft W as h o u t/ ra in /s lid e/ et c. d am ag e V er ti ca l s p lit h ea d Tr an sv er se /c o m p o u n d fi ss u re Tr ac k al ig n m en t ir re g u la ri ty (n o t b u ck le d /s u n k in ks ) C ro ss -l ev el t ra ck ir re g u la ri ty (n o t at jo in ts ) W id e g au g e ( sp ik es /o th er r ai l f as te n er s) O th er r ai l a n d jo in t b ar d ef ec ts B ro ke n b as e o f ra il B ro ke n w el d ( fi el d ) H ea d a n d w eb s ep ar at io n ( o u ts id e jo in t b ar li m it ) $60 $50 $40 $30 $20 $10 $0 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

TRACK AND STRUCTURES 23 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WHEN PROGRAMMING RESEARCH The Track Division leadership and program managers who briefed the committee explained that the other considerations that go into program- ming the Track Division’s research include an interest in projects that fur- ther U.S. DOT’s strategic goals, address legislative mandates, and respond to needs identified by other FRA units and industry. Because the products and services from RD&T support innovations in safety inspections and regulatory techniques, FRA’s Office of Railroad Safety (RRS) is considered a key customer. Accordingly, Track Division staff interact with RRS staff through various means. For instance, the Track Division chief and other RD&T division chiefs attend an annual RRS training event to gain a better understanding of safety inspection methods and associated regulatory needs. Indeed, RRS safety regulators pointed to some specific research products coming from the division that have met inspector needs such as machine vision technology for detecting risks associated with rail joints and track geometry inspection techniques for reducing risks of gauge changes from defective crossties and fasteners. Track Division and other RD&T staff hold monthly meetings to discuss research and safety needs. In addition, they join RD&T staff from the other research divisions in meetings of the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee. The subcommittee was also told that the regular participation by Track Division staff at meetings and conferences on railroad research provides an important means of obtaining information on railroad in- dustry needs and possible research opportunities, such as meetings of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Research Committee and academic conferences such as the biennial International Crosstie and Fastening System Symposium held at the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, which is supported by RD&T (Federal Railroad Adminis- tration Office of Research, Development, and Technology 2019e). Input from industry on research needs is considered important for addressing the right problems and finding solutions that have a greater chance of being adopted. Use of the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) as an important method of procurement provides a means for the Track Divi- sion to engage with researchers from academia and industry to identify research needs and project ideas. In-kind support and other contributions to projects by AAR and individual railroads are considered important for this reason. Examples of Track Division collaborations with railroads include the development of a vehicle–track interaction monitor and autonomous track geometry measurement system (ATGMS), which is now used widely

24 REVIEW OF FRA’S R&D PROGRAM by FRA and railroads to monitor track conditions.2 The Track Division has also partnered with Amtrak to examine wheel–rail interface profiles for passenger rail service. To assist with project prioritization and decision making, the Track Di- vision, like the other research divisions, had employed portfolio and budget planning software that scores candidate projects for several years. However, the subcommittee learned through discussions with Track Division staff that the use of the program has been suspended while the weighting param- eters are updated. Further discussion of this decision-support tool, Decision Lens, can be found in Chapter 6. PROGRAM BUDGET ALLOCATIONS The Track Division’s annual budget fluctuated slightly from 2015 to 2019 but was generally around $11 million (see Figure 2-2). About 20 percent of that amount was spent on testing facilities and equipment, leaving about $9 million per year to split between the track and structures program and the track–train interaction program. Research conducted by the former program accounts for about two-thirds of the spending. As noted in Table 2-1, track component defects are the predominant cause of track-related derailments, which may explain the larger research sums for research on track and structures. In 2018, the track and structures program funded 26 research projects, compared to 10 by the track–train interaction program (Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research, Development, and Technology 2019a). From 2017 to 2019, the number of projects in the di- vision’s total portfolio ranged from 39 to 54, with some projects covering topics that spanned both program areas (Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research, Development, and Technology 2018a, 2019a, 2020a). The full list of current projects in the two programs is provided in Table 2-A1 in the chapter annex. EXTERNAL VIEWS ON RESEARCH RELEVANCE AND IMPACT To obtain insight on how others view the relevance and impact of the work of the Track Division, the subcommittee consulted with three research- ers from academia and representatives from the AAR industry who had familiarity with the two research programs and their results. (Appendix B includes a list of individuals consulted.) The general response was one 2 Railroads have implemented 14 ATGMS units in the North American market and 16 units internationally, with both markets presenting opportunities for many additional backlogged and potential orders (Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research, Development, and Technology 2019c, 15).

TRACK AND STRUCTURES 25 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $1 $0 Millions 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2.8 5.3 3.4 2.9 5.2 3.4 2.1 6.5 3.0 2.1 6.1 3.0 2.1 6.1 3.0 R&D Facilities and Equipment Track and Structures Track and Train Interaction FIGURE 2-2 FRA Track and Structures Research Division budget by major program in millions of dollars. SOURCE: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research, Development, and Technology 2019d. of satisfaction, especially with Track Division staff’s technical expertise and understanding of the problems that are the subjects of the contracted research. The researchers favored the division’s use of BAAs for program- ming research, which allowed for more research ideas to be pursued and increased their interaction and communication with Track Division staff. The subcommittee also learned from these consultations that many of the division’s projects are collaborations, in which the team performing the work engages with one or more partners from industry. According to the outside experts who were consulted, these partnerships have been valu- able for ensuring that the work remains relevant and the result likely to be adopted in the field. Indeed, the previous Transportation Research Board committee that reviewed FRA’s R&D program recommended that greater emphasis be placed on such collaboration (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2015, 7). Researchers who had previous experience doing contract research for the division noted that requirements for monthly progress reports by con- ference call tended to lead to greater clarity of expectations by all parties. The consulted researchers did, however, offer a few ideas on where and how improvements could be made to the program, including on the com- munications side. One idea was that the Track Division sponsor an annual research conference with industry and RRS staff to discuss project results and new project proposals to further improve the portfolio’s alignment with

26 REVIEW OF FRA’S R&D PROGRAM the needs of industry and safety regulators. Another was for more projects to have longer time horizons (beyond 2 years) so that research teams could involve more doctoral students and thereby expand the talent pool in the field. INSIGHTS ON PROJECT SELECTION, PROCUREMENT, AND IMPACTS FROM A SAMPLING OF PROJECTS From a list of active and recently completed projects (see the chapter an- nex), the subcommittee selected five for further review to ascertain the methods used for project selection and procurement and for more insight into the impact of the track R&D program. Although not selected on a scientific basis, the five sampled projects are helpful for illustrating project selection criteria, procurement methods, and impacts. Project details for the following cases are based on the subcommittee’s public data-gathering sessions and RD&T’s listing of current projects for 2019 (Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research, Development, and Technology 2019a). Robust Railway Track Crack Detection System Using Thermal Signatures This project was prompted by a finding that a broken rail caused the May 2013 derailment of a Metro-North commuter train in Bridgeport, Connecti- cut, that injured scores of passengers. Investigators learned that the broken rail was observed on standard optical cameras mounted on several Amtrak trains that had passed the derailment location before the incident. These findings led researchers to consider how broken rails might be identified using machine vision (i.e., in real time through automated means) before they lead to incidents. In this project, consideration was given to the use of inexpensive infrared (IR) thermal imaging cameras, which would be more likely to find widespread implementation by industry. Detection of a broken rail by the sensors on a train would trigger an end-of-train device that could apply brakes faster than a human operator. The ready availability of low-cost IR imaging equipment led the pro- gram manager to focus on this sensor technology because of its likelihood of industrywide adoption. A contractor was selected from 23 proposers solicited through U.S. DOT’s Small Business Innovation Research program. The project was split into two phases with a total performance period of 24 months with separate awards in 2017 and 2018. The contractor partnered with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) for field trials. A prototype train-mounted platform consisting of an IR camera, low-power microprocessor, GPS, and temperature and humidity sensor was developed in Phase 1 and deployed on MBTA trains to look for rail cracks. The data were used during Phase 2 to make improvements to sensors and

TRACK AND STRUCTURES 27 image-processing algorithms. While the phases were conducted as planned, project managers found that the poor optical resolution from the low-cost IR technology would not yield a viable system, and no plans were made for follow-on work. Investigation of Timber Crosstie Spike Fastener Failures Spike fastener failures have been identified as an important cause of de- railments from FRA incident reports. This is a multiphase project. In the first phase, researchers sought to determine the extent of spike failures in track and to characterize the track conditions where the failures occur by reviewing derailment reports and literature, surveying railroads, and con- ducting field visits (Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research, Development, and Technology 2019b). During this first phase investigators discovered that spike failures are prevalent under specific track conditions and can pose a significant risk. A preliminary finite element model (FEM) was developed in the second phase of the project to investigate the effect of load direction and magnitude on spike stress. In the third phase of the project, which was underway when reviewed by the subcommittee, researchers are testing failure hypotheses developed through FEM methods and laboratory and field experimentation to deter- mine the mechanisms of force transfer in fasteners and the effects of fas- tener stiffness and spike stress. The goal is to improve fastener designs and installation and maintenance practices that prevent spike failures. A key to the success of this multiphase project—and prioritization given to it for funding—has been the involvement of industry. The project partners are the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Class I railroads including Norfolk Southern Railway, BNSF Railway, CSX Trans- portation, Union Pacific Railroad, Canadian National Railway, and the fastener supplier Pandrol. The first two project phases were funded at $300,000, but these funds were leveraged by the in-kind contributions of the industry partners. Relationship Between Track Geometry Defects and Measured Track Subsurface Conditions Selected from proposals to a BAA, the aim of this project is to demonstrate the potential of ground penetrating radar (GPR) to quantify track substruc- ture defects (Zarembski et al. 2020). The second phase developed a prob- ability model of occurrence of track geometry defects as a function of key subgrade parameters (e.g., ballast fouling and ballast layer thickness), as measured by GPR. Results showed a statistically significant relationship be- tween high rates of geometry degradation and poor subsurface conditions,

28 REVIEW OF FRA’S R&D PROGRAM allowing the development of a predictive model for determining the rate of geometry degradation as a function of these measured parameters. Phase 1 involved a partnership between the University of Delaware Railroad Engineering and Safety Program and the railway maintenance provider Georgetown Rail Equipment Company. The successful results from the first phase, which cost $290,000 and lasted 28 months, attracted additional interest from railroads, prompting the Track Division to fund a second phase. During this second phase, researchers are analyzing the data collected in Phase 1 using machine learning techniques and developing the software to make better use of GPR data for associating track geometry defects with measured subsurface conditions. The second phase, budgeted for $304,000, is due to be completed in September 2021. Upgrade of Continuous Welded Rail Software Continuous welded rail software (CWR-SAFE) provides a computational model for determining the buckling probability of continuous welded rail as a function of factors such as maximum rail temperature. The aim of this project was to modernize the CWR-SAFE software program for use on cur- rent computer operating systems and mobile devices and to promote FRA and industry use of the application through a secure website. First devel- oped in the 1990s, CWR-SAFE (built on an early Windows platform) was becoming unusable unless upgraded for current technology. Because FRA and the railroad industry use this software to manage the risks from track buckling, the project was prioritized by the Track Division and received in-kind support from railroads. Funded at $150,000 over a period of 15 months ending in September 2019, the project produced the desired software upgrade and secure web- site. Although the product is now being used by industry, FRA owns the user rights to the program and has therefore been engaging with industry on options for expanding industry use in ways that do not violate intellectual property rights. Bridge Condition Assessment Using Smart Sensors This multiphase project originated from a BAA proposal to develop a sensor-based system for assessing bridge safety by measuring bridge move- ment under active loading. The measurement data are intended to provide railroads with additional quantitative means for prioritizing bridge main- tenance and replacement. First awarded in 2013, the first phase (completed in 2015 at a cost of $164,000) involved a partnership between the Univer- sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Canadian National Railway to develop the sensor system hardware. During the second phase (completed

TRACK AND STRUCTURES 29 in 2016 for $136,000), data collected from field trials of equipment on multiple bridges were used to establish service limit thresholds and test estimation algorithms and the user interface for the system. In addition to the initial project partners, multiple short line railroads joined in Phase 3, which studied bridge safety limits based on the assess- ment system and empirical data for use by railroads in their prioritization of bridge maintenance. Lasting for 29 months and costing $355,000, this project exemplifies how partnerships with industry can be valuable for focusing research on practical problems and ensuring usable results. This project too, however, faces deployment challenges as FRA has user rights while the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign owns the intellectual property. OBSERVATIONS Informed by derailment causal data, information obtained from the discus- sions with division staff and external parties, and insights gleaned from the sampled studies, the track subcommittee makes the following observations, which are the basis for advice offered at the end of this chapter. Value of Safety Data and Industry Collaboration in Project Selection The budgets for the Track Division’s two research programs on track and structures and vehicle–track interaction align with data on track-related derailment causes. About twice as much funding is devoted to the research in the track and structure’s program, which would seem to be appropriate because track defects are common causes of derailments and account for about twice as many derailments as train–track interaction causes. Al- though it would not be possible to map all projects to incident causes, the portfolio contains many projects that are clearly aimed at finding solutions to high-severity incident causes such as detail fractures, track buckling, and wide gauge. Selections of research topics and proposals are also informed by other means, which were particularly evident from the sample of projects. The Track Division appears to place a heavy emphasis on proposals that involve partnerships and collaborations with railroads, suppliers, RRS staff, and other potential users of the results. According to Track Division staff and the industry and academic researchers who were consulted, such stakeholder engagement and partnering can be particularly important for track-related projects that require field investigations, testing, and deployments. The subcommittee notes that decision-support tools can be an effective means for developing and articulating the rationale for project selection,

30 REVIEW OF FRA’S R&D PROGRAM such as the Decision Lens software that had been in use. Renewed use of such software, once recalibrated, should lead to even more effective means for project selection and even more effective communication of research priorities with industry and other audiences, especially if combined with other means such as periodic conferences with industry to discuss the basis for past project selections. Chapter 6 includes a discussion of the use of decision-support tools in project selection. Reliance on Phased Procurement The sampled projects also illustrate how the Track Division phases re- search, often into two or three phases that each have a well-defined set of tasks, timetables, and required outcomes to justify the funding of follow-on phases. The use of separate procurements for distinct phases of larger proj- ects can be an effective means of reducing risk through the establishment of clear checks on project quality. Phased procurement can also enable the funding of more projects with a limited annual budget. Indeed, Track Division staff indicated that heavy reliance on phasing is at least partly at- tributable to a desire to research more topics with a lean budget. However, a drawback of such a phased approach is that it can slow progress on low-risk projects that have a higher likelihood of commercial viability. Another drawback is that it can lead to a portfolio with many active projects, which can create administrative challenges for program managers. Phasing can consequently lead to delays in both the conduct of research and the administration of projects that can slow the development and deployment of important safety technologies. Advance Planning to Assure Widespread Deployment Capability Evident in the selection of projects and the frequent partnering of research contractors with industry is the Track Division’s emphasis on ensuring that research addresses industry needs and has natural avenues for technology transfer through industry partners. The willingness of railroads, suppliers, and others from industry to participate in a project is a clear sign that the research topic is important and the innovations being pursued by the research promise to have application in the field. Ensuring longer-term and more wide-scale deployment of successful innovations from research, however, may require even more front-end technology transfer planning to avoid deployment obstacles. The sampled projects reveal one such obstacle—the management of user and intellectual property rights. As the sponsor of the research, FRA maintains the right to use the product or service developed through the work. The intellectual property rights, however, may reside with the

TRACK AND STRUCTURES 31 research organization. The sampled projects on Bridge Condition Assess- ment Using Smart Sensors and CWR-SAFE Software Update show how this division can present challenges to facilitating more widespread deployment across industry. These challenges are not new, as track subcommittee mem- bers recognize them as long-standing issues that would continue to benefit from more advance planning. In the case of the successful effort to update the CWR-SAFE software, the issue of intellectual property, such as user and data rights, is accompanied by the absence of a third-party developer to regularly maintain the software. Here too, advance planning for such a capability would seem to be desirable. Program funding, as noted above, has declined since 2015, which may necessitate reasonable adaptations to fiscal constraints on the research port- folio for the division. One approach could be a reduction in the number of active projects funded to ensure that the most high-impact research is conducted with sufficient funding to expedite innovation. The track sub- committee believes that projects meeting certain criteria, such as demon- strable proof of concept and commercial viability, merit consideration for fast-tracking by judiciously reducing the use of phasing on certain projects. It would be crucial that rigorous oversight accompany projects with larger contract awards over longer periods of time. RECOMMENDATION Based on the observations made above, the track subcommittee, in con- currence with the full study committee, recommends that the Track Divi- sion take the following step in conjunction with other relevant actions recommended in Chapter 6: Ensure that technology transfer planning is sufficiently thorough and anticipatory at the outset of projects to take into account and manage the challenges that can hinder desired levels of deployment of research products and services, including the management of intellectual property such as user and data rights.

32 REVIEW OF FRA’S R&D PROGRAM ANNEX TABLE 2A-1 Track Division Projects, 2019 Track Division Project Title Funding Project Duration Defect Growth Characterization in Modern Rail Steel $697,016 January 8, 2016–June 29, 2019 Non-Contact Rail Inspection Prototype (Passive-Only System for High-Speed Rail Inspection) $561,323 May 2016–May 2019 Robust Railway Track Crack Detection System Using Thermal Signatures $300,000 May 2017–May 2019 High-Speed Broken Rail Detection $299,000 May 2017–May 2019 Quantification and Evaluation of Rail Flaw Inspection Practices and Technologies $449,000 July 2016–May 2019 Rail Neutral Temperature (RNT) and Longitudinal Force Management $524,000 July 2016–December 2019 Rail Neutral Temperature (RNT) Measurement by Virginia Tech $141,000 July 2018–July 2020 Rail Neutral Temperature (RNT) Measurement (University of Sheffield) $150,000 November 2018–November 2019 Upgrade of CWR-SAFE Software $150,000 September 2018–September 2019 Rail Temperature Prediction $39,942 September 2018–December 2019 Ballast Waiver Support $404,455 August 2018–July 2019 Quantification of Track Instabilities Due to Ballast Movement at Special Locations Using Integrated Sensor Networks $322,842 September 2018–August 2020 Innovative Track Inspection Technologies $112,486 August 2018–April 2019 Relationship Between Track Geometry Defects and Measured Track Subsurface Conditions $289,842 August 2016–December 2018 Near Real-Time Processing of Targeted Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Data for Ballast Condition $378,782 September 2018–August 2019 Concrete Tie Design and Performance Research $1,000,000 annually June 2011–June 2019 Automated Frog Repair Technology $300,000 March 2016–September 2018 Bridge Condition Assessment Using Smart Sensors $350,000 January 2017–June 2019 Investigation of Timber Crosstie Spike Fastener Failures $300,000 April 2018–April 2019 Portable Rail Suspension Displacement Monitoring System $300,000 December 2016–December 2018 Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) Evaluations $1,225,151 May 2015–December 2018 Steering Traction on Wheel and Rail Damage—Full Scale Testing with RCF Simulator (RCFS)* $2,176,253 September 2013–October 2019 Evaluation of Wheel/Rail Contact Mechanics and Dynamics* $300,000 September 2017–February 2019 (Phase II) Ground Truth Measurement of Track Geometry on FRA Test Track* $480,000 September 2018–September 2019 Vehicle–Track Interaction Testing, Modeling and Analyses* $231,000 September 2018–September 2019 Rolling Contact Fatigue (RCF) Qualification* $90,000 annually 2017–2020 Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) Evaluation Procedures $800,000 April 2015–March 2019 Coil Spring Characterization and Modeling* $700,000 2014–2019 Influence of Track Irregularities on Derailment Safety* $400,000 June 2018–May 2020

TRACK AND STRUCTURES 33 ANNEX TABLE 2A-1 Track Division Projects, 2019 Track Division Project Title Funding Project Duration Defect Growth Characterization in Modern Rail Steel $697,016 January 8, 2016–June 29, 2019 Non-Contact Rail Inspection Prototype (Passive-Only System for High-Speed Rail Inspection) $561,323 May 2016–May 2019 Robust Railway Track Crack Detection System Using Thermal Signatures $300,000 May 2017–May 2019 High-Speed Broken Rail Detection $299,000 May 2017–May 2019 Quantification and Evaluation of Rail Flaw Inspection Practices and Technologies $449,000 July 2016–May 2019 Rail Neutral Temperature (RNT) and Longitudinal Force Management $524,000 July 2016–December 2019 Rail Neutral Temperature (RNT) Measurement by Virginia Tech $141,000 July 2018–July 2020 Rail Neutral Temperature (RNT) Measurement (University of Sheffield) $150,000 November 2018–November 2019 Upgrade of CWR-SAFE Software $150,000 September 2018–September 2019 Rail Temperature Prediction $39,942 September 2018–December 2019 Ballast Waiver Support $404,455 August 2018–July 2019 Quantification of Track Instabilities Due to Ballast Movement at Special Locations Using Integrated Sensor Networks $322,842 September 2018–August 2020 Innovative Track Inspection Technologies $112,486 August 2018–April 2019 Relationship Between Track Geometry Defects and Measured Track Subsurface Conditions $289,842 August 2016–December 2018 Near Real-Time Processing of Targeted Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Data for Ballast Condition $378,782 September 2018–August 2019 Concrete Tie Design and Performance Research $1,000,000 annually June 2011–June 2019 Automated Frog Repair Technology $300,000 March 2016–September 2018 Bridge Condition Assessment Using Smart Sensors $350,000 January 2017–June 2019 Investigation of Timber Crosstie Spike Fastener Failures $300,000 April 2018–April 2019 Portable Rail Suspension Displacement Monitoring System $300,000 December 2016–December 2018 Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) Evaluations $1,225,151 May 2015–December 2018 Steering Traction on Wheel and Rail Damage—Full Scale Testing with RCF Simulator (RCFS)* $2,176,253 September 2013–October 2019 Evaluation of Wheel/Rail Contact Mechanics and Dynamics* $300,000 September 2017–February 2019 (Phase II) Ground Truth Measurement of Track Geometry on FRA Test Track* $480,000 September 2018–September 2019 Vehicle–Track Interaction Testing, Modeling and Analyses* $231,000 September 2018–September 2019 Rolling Contact Fatigue (RCF) Qualification* $90,000 annually 2017–2020 Track Geometry Measurement System (TGMS) Evaluation Procedures $800,000 April 2015–March 2019 Coil Spring Characterization and Modeling* $700,000 2014–2019 Influence of Track Irregularities on Derailment Safety* $400,000 June 2018–May 2020 continued

34 REVIEW OF FRA’S R&D PROGRAM TABLE 2A-1 Continued Track Division Project Title Funding Project Duration Support of FRA Office of Railroad Safety $400,000 June 2018–May 2020 Modeling of Wheel/Rail Friction Modifier* $300,000 September 2017–December 2018 Advanced Modeling of Wheel/Rail Friction Phenomena* $225,000 March 2017–March 2019 Track Geometry and Vehicle Performance* $962,862 September 2016–March 2019 Adjustable Precision Curved Track Anomaly Test Section* $441,000 October 2018–January 2020 U.S.–China Railway Technology Exchange $30,000 (FY 2018) 2012–2019 Evaluation of Track Inspection Technology Effectiveness $124,000 July 2018–May 2019 Artificial Intelligence Aided Track Risk Analysis (AI-TrackRisk) $345,651 August 2018–August 2020 Moisture-Sensitive Ballast Fouling Measurement Tool $468,625 July 2016–January 2019 Automated Change Detection Technology for Track Inspection $345,651 August 2018–August 2020 NOTES: Vehicle–track interaction is a research subject for projects marked with an asterisk (*). Funding level is for FY 2019 unless otherwise specified. SOURCE: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research, Development, and Technol- ogy 2019a.

TRACK AND STRUCTURES 35 Track Division Project Title Funding Project Duration Support of FRA Office of Railroad Safety $400,000 June 2018–May 2020 Modeling of Wheel/Rail Friction Modifier* $300,000 September 2017–December 2018 Advanced Modeling of Wheel/Rail Friction Phenomena* $225,000 March 2017–March 2019 Track Geometry and Vehicle Performance* $962,862 September 2016–March 2019 Adjustable Precision Curved Track Anomaly Test Section* $441,000 October 2018–January 2020 U.S.–China Railway Technology Exchange $30,000 (FY 2018) 2012–2019 Evaluation of Track Inspection Technology Effectiveness $124,000 July 2018–May 2019 Artificial Intelligence Aided Track Risk Analysis (AI-TrackRisk) $345,651 August 2018–August 2020 Moisture-Sensitive Ballast Fouling Measurement Tool $468,625 July 2016–January 2019 Automated Change Detection Technology for Track Inspection $345,651 August 2018–August 2020 NOTES: Vehicle–track interaction is a research subject for projects marked with an asterisk (*). Funding level is for FY 2019 unless otherwise specified. SOURCE: Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research, Development, and Technol- ogy 2019a.